Jump to content
inthisriver

General Chat / Random Musings

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

With you, I usually prefer starting such a discussion with a little bantering joke that hopefully hits home, or at the very least serves as a starting point for a discussion, because you tend to take it the good-natured way it was meant. 

I just think there's a lot of people that did what Fleetwood Mac tried to a lot better than they did, nothing ever really struck me about them as...something that would draw me in.  Peter Green is difficult to fault but he was always a sort of an Eric Clapton replacement in my mind.  Also, yes, the hippie nature of a bit of what they did is...a bit shite.  Corporate hippie.  I have a problem with a lot of those people, Fleetwood Mac, Crosby Stills & Nash.  There's something inauthentic about it all.  Spurious.  There is a whole spate of groups and artists from that love generation that are very...ummm...cynical.  Both in their motives for forming and their backers.  I understand that this is a trifling matter for a lot of people who don't really care much for all this stuff as long as the tune is good and there's a lot to that way of thinking, I recall us having conversations where you've pointed this out and thats fair enough but music is kind of a big thing for me...and integrity in that regard because I think often its the difference between a purer and not so pure level of art.  Also my objections don't necessarily work in the order of, OK, I discover that something is corporate or whatever and then dislike the music, often I've heard these bands/groups/artists way ahead of time and never gotten on with them and then later you discover more about the background of the matter and its like OK, yeah, I can kind of see that in my objection to them, I can see why the music never really lit anything inside of me. 

I believe a lot in music, in the power of music, in the value of music, its one of the few things in life that I feel is sort of important to me, personally.  I'm often wrong about this shit too and its important to guard against pointless snobbery too, something I've been prey to in the past only to learn later in life that I should've given 'x' thing more of a chance because I ended up loving it. 

I think, a lot of that peace and love generation, there was a great deal of sincere artists in there, artist with a capital A...Jimi Hendrix is, for example, about as pure an example of artistry as popular music ever threw up.  But at the same time, on the part of artists as well as the money machine behind them, there was a concerted industrial effort, as there is with most musical movements, to present you with this sort of image behind which there was something very contrary going on.  And I think it shows it shows in how the music feels.  Which is not to say you can't be corporate and also be of substance, shit, some of the most contrived groups in christendom have made some great tunes...its the masquerade I suppose that troubles me.  Particularly in the late 60s, some really quite awful music was put out there to sort of sanitise something that had potential to be quite interesting and substantial movement, one that could have led in a number of different and intriguing directions.  Fleetwood Mac are a group, one of a few groups, that exemplify a contrivance which, to me, kinda stinks.  They have a awful easy listening feel to my ears.  I like music that provokes a reaction from me...Fleetwood Mac never did that.  The word provoke has a violence to it, I don't mean necessarily it needs to be abrasive but just...it kinda takes me somewhere, throws up some sort of emotion, makes me think or has some kind of feeling to it.

Edited by Len Cnut
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

With you, I usually prefer starting such a discussion with a little bantering joke that hopefully hits home, or at the very least serves as a starting point for a discussion, because you tend to take it up the arse in the way it was meant. 

:lol: 

15 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I just think there's a lot of people that did what Fleetwood Mac tried to a lot better than they did, nothing ever really struck me about them as...something that would draw me in.  Peter Green is difficult to fault but he was always a sort of an Eric Clapton replacement in my mind.  Also, yes, the hippie nature of a bit of what they did is...a bit shite.  Corporate hippie.  I have a problem with a lot of those people, Fleetwood Mac, Crosby Stills & Nash.  There's something inauthentic about it all.  Spurious.  There is a whole spate of groups and artists from that love generation that are very...ummm...cynical.  Both in their motives for forming and their backers.  I understand that this is a trifling matter for a lot of people who don't really care much for all this stuff as long as the tune is good and there's a lot to that way of thinking, I recall us having conversations where you've pointed this out and thats fair enough but music is kind of a big thing for me...and integrity in that regard because I think often its the difference between a purer and not so pure level of art.  Also my objections don't necessarily work in the order of, OK, I discover that something is corporate or whatever and then dislike the music, often I've heard these bands/groups/artists way ahead of time and never gotten on with them and then later you discover more about the background of the matter and its like OK, yeah, I can kind of see that in my objection to them, I can see why the music never really lit anything inside of me. 

I believe a lot in music, in the power of music, in the value of music, its one of the few things in life that I feel is sort of important to me, personally.  I'm often wrong about this shit too and its important to guard against pointless snobbery too, something I've been prey to in the past only to learn later in life that I should've given 'x' thing more of a chance because I ended up loving it. 

I think, a lot of that peace and love generation, there was a great deal of sincere artists in there, artist with a capital A...Jimi Hendrix is, for example, about as pure an example of artistry as popular music ever threw up.  But at the same time, on the part of artists as well as the money machine behind them, there was a concerted industrial effort, as there is with most musical movements, to present you with this sort of image behind which there was something very contrary going on.  And I think it shows it shows in how the music feels.  Which is not to say you can't be corporate and also be of substance, shit, some of the most contrived groups in christendom have made some great tunes...its the masquerade I suppose that troubles me.  Particularly in the late 60s, some really quite awful music was put out there to sort of sanitise something that had potential to be quite interesting and substantial movement, one that could have led in a number of different and intriguing directions.  Fleetwood Mac are a group, one of a few groups, that exemplify a contrivance which, to me, kinda stinks.  They have a awful easy listening feel to my ears.  I like music that provokes a reaction from me...Fleetwood Mac never did that.  The word provoke has a violence to it, I don't mean necessarily it needs to be abrasive but just...it kinda takes me somewhere, throws up some sort of emotion, makes me think or has some kind of feeling to it.

Fleetwood Mac are great and you’re a cock! :lol: 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I just think there's a lot of people that did what Fleetwood Mac tried to a lot better than they did, nothing ever really struck me about them as...something that would draw me in.  Peter Green is difficult to fault but he was always a sort of an Eric Clapton replacement in my mind.  Also, yes, the hippie nature of a bit of what they did is...a bit shite.  Corporate hippie.  I have a problem with a lot of those people, Fleetwood Mac, Crosby Stills & Nash.  There's something inauthentic about it all.  Spurious.  There is a whole spate of groups and artists from that love generation that are very...ummm...cynical.  Both in their motives for forming and their backers.  I understand that this is a trifling matter for a lot of people who don't really care much for all this stuff as long as the tune is good and there's a lot to that way of thinking, I recall us having conversations where you've pointed this out and thats fair enough but music is kind of a big thing for me...and integrity in that regard because I think often its the difference between a purer and not so pure level of art.  Also my objections don't necessarily work in the order of, OK, I discover that something is corporate or whatever and then dislike the music, often I've heard these bands/groups/artists way ahead of time and never gotten on with them and then later you discover more about the background of the matter and its like OK, yeah, I can kind of see that in my objection to them, I can see why the music never really lit anything inside of me. 

I believe a lot in music, in the power of music, in the value of music, its one of the few things in life that I feel is sort of important to me, personally.  I'm often wrong about this shit too and its important to guard against pointless snobbery too, something I've been prey to in the past only to learn later in life that I should've given 'x' thing more of a chance because I ended up loving it. 

I think, a lot of that peace and love generation, there was a great deal of sincere artists in there, artist with a capital A...Jimi Hendrix is, for example, about as pure an example of artistry as popular music ever threw up.  But at the same time, on the part of artists as well as the money machine behind them, there was a concerted industrial effort, as there is with most musical movements, to present you with this sort of image behind which there was something very contrary going on.  And I think it shows it shows in how the music feels.  Which is not to say you can't be corporate and also be of substance, shit, some of the most contrived groups in christendom have made some great tunes...its the masquerade I suppose that troubles me.  Particularly in the late 60s, some really quite awful music was put out there to sort of sanitise something that had potential to be quite interesting and substantial movement, one that could have led in a number of different and intriguing directions.  Fleetwood Mac are a group, one of a few groups, that exemplify a contrivance which, to me, kinda stinks.  They have a awful easy listening feel to my ears.  I like music that provokes a reaction from me...Fleetwood Mac never did that.  The word provoke has a violence to it, I don't mean necessarily it needs to be abrasive but just...it kinda takes me somewhere, throws up some sort of emotion, makes me think or has some kind of feeling to it.

This is why MC5 never made a decent studio album.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len, I think you hit bullseye: I love Fleetwood Mac not because they said anything beyond the mysic, caused some sort of shift in musical paradigm, were innovative or unique, or took culture in a new direction, but just because the songs are fucking great. And they managed to create great music while changing not only the lineup but genre of music. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like music, or arts, with a message beyond just the music, music that causes a reaction, but I can also just enjoy well-crafted tunes with great musicians. It doesn't all have to be profound beyond the music, some times it is refreshing when it isn't and less contrived. Just good songs. I wish more mysicians would focus more on the music, but maybe they can't rely on it alone? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, soon said:

This is why MC5 never made a decent studio album.

Does their debut count as a studio album?  I guess not cuz its kinda a live album of original songs.

 

22 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Len, I think you hit bullseye: I love Fleetwood Mac not because they said anything beyond the mysic, caused some sort of shift in musical paradigm, were innovative or unique, or took culture in a new direction, but just because the songs are fucking great. And they managed to create great music while changing not only the lineup but genre of music. 

Yeah, even contrived can be good...Fleetwood Mac are just sort of a malaise to me though.  Don't really...get much of a reaction from me, musically.

49 minutes ago, Dazey said:

:lol: 

Fleetwood Mac are great and you’re a cock! :lol: 

No to the first bit and yes to the last bit :lol:  And you know I'm right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Len, I think you hit bullseye: I love Fleetwood Mac not because they said anything beyond the mysic, caused some sort of shift in musical paradigm, were innovative or unique, or took culture in a new direction, but just because the songs are fucking great. And they managed to create great music while changing not only the lineup but genre of music. 

I would say that a band being lead by the rhythm section is pretty unique? And its not only that they helm the enterprise of the band, they are very busy players who are often central to the arrangements. I cant think of any other groups like this? The way the rhythm section figures into their songs is somewhat innovative in AOR I'd say.

I agree with the rest of your post.

11 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Does their debut count as a studio album?  I guess not cuz its kinda a live album of original songs.

Debut was a live recording, yeah. And its untouchable!! :headbang:

It was so successful that the money men got overly involved. So second album, a studio album, was slicker and, for me, I can almost feel the discomfort of the band members. So that album didnt live up to expectations. Meaning a smaller budget for next album. And they were flushed down the proverbial toilet of the industry after album 4, iirc?

And to think that no band had ever been more clear with the A&R men, and the entire world, about their artistic needs, "just let me be who I am / Ive got to kick out the jams!"

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

 Peter Green is difficult to fault but he was always a sort of an Eric Clapton replacement in my mind.

The combination Peter Green and Danny Kirwan was pretty fucking awesome though.

 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, EvanG said:

The combination Peter Green and Danny Kirwan was pretty fucking awesome though.

 

Yes! I LOOOOOOVE Kirwan!!!!! Strumming so hard the strings are breaking.

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes! I LOOOOOOVE Kirwan!!!!! Strumming so hard the strings are breaking.

His solo stuff is a different animal but also very good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was dressed for success but success it never comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dazey said:

:lol: 

Fleetwood Mac are great and you’re a cock! :lol: 

He doesn't like Pink Floyd either!

@Len Cnut you don't like Pink Floyd either! :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, soon said:

I would say that a band being lead by the rhythm section is pretty unique? And its not only that they helm the enterprise of the band, they are very busy players who are often central to the arrangements. I cant think of any other groups like this? The way the rhythm section figures into their songs is somewhat innovative in AOR I'd say.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Debut was a live recording, yeah. And its untouchable!! :headbang:

It was so successful that the money men got overly involved. So second album, a studio album, was slicker and, for me, I can almost feel the discomfort of the band members. So that album didnt live up to expectations. Meaning a smaller budget for next album. And they were flushed down the proverbial toilet of the industry after album 4, iirc?

And to think that no band had ever been more clear with the A&R men, and the entire world, about their artistic needs, "just let me be who I am / Ive got to kick out the jams!"

Part of whats annoying about that shit is like a lot of really good artists kinda got lost in the shuffle.  The MC5 were pretty much doomed from the day that album came out and their association with John Sinclair and certain anti-corporate proclamations they made.  Alright, granted, its not the wisest choice in the world but :lol:  That was a great band who kinda weren't really cared for by their own record label and weren't really promoted or anything, they kind rode off their own steam.  So Alice Cooper gets the treatment while The Stooges, who they kinda took a lot of their insane theatrical shit from doesn't get the same...push.  And everybody knows it has nothing to do with the quality of the music, Iggy has like...a fair few instantly recognisable hits, even to your average man, whereas I don't think your average man on the street could recognise more than, I dunno, Schools Out from Alice Cooper.  The New York Dolls lose the whole major label bidding war when the safe neo-Stones known as Aerosmith roll around, its like all the fuckin' coffee table shit always gets promoted whilst anyone out there making some shit with some powerful intent gets kinda swept to the side a bit. 

And y'know, it ruined peoples lives, people died behind this shit, people like Wayne Kramer ended up on the street selling drugs, doing a serious bid in a federal penintentiary for serving up to federal agents, Iggy Pop, bless him, didn't even have a place of his own to live until the 1980s, Johnny Thunders spent his whole life playing shitty clubs around Europe and America (even Japan too, to be fair) smacked up off his fuckin' tits until they found him dead off a hotshot in New Orleans.  And its always this way in the industry and its only due to like, a few good men in the industry, certain hip A&R guys like Danny Fields, guys that were actually scenesters and into music instead of bean-counting, that some of these great artists even got signed.  Now even those don't exist.  I guess this is it though, this is the way, there's always this kind of alternative history to things that is there for anyone that cares to kick the rock over.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Thats what a fuckin' band looks like, fuckin' Fleetwood Mac my arse.  You can tell a lot about a band from its fuckin' audience.  Bill O Reilly, nuff said.

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

Sean Connery?

Whats more fucked up about it is the scene caused a sort of a minor stir in the wake of #metoo because, so the story goes, that  part of the film was improvised so when you watch it you are actually seeing Steve slap the shit out of her, on what basis are they selling this, 'bring home a bit of authentic domestic abuse to lend some colour to your living room!', I can't see IKEA goin' a bundle on this one.

4 available, 1 sold, its gotta be Sean!

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

 

Thats what a fuckin' band looks like, fuckin' Fleetwood Mac my arse.  You can tell a lot about a band from its fuckin' audience.  Bill O Reilly, nuff said.

Thats rock n' roll!!!!! Raw power, equal measures of celebration and rebellion. The scope of this vision defies commodification. An indie recording scene wasnt yet a viable option for the masses, but as a proto-punk band they inspired exactly that - when punk took complete control of the means of production and created its own studios, labels, vinyl pressing, t shirt and stickers, venues and tour routes. I wish the MC5 had their own Bear (the acid dealer who funded the early Grateful Dead, along with the Pranksters). 

I like how they do the synchronized twin guitar neck dance moves because the only other people Ive seen do that are their exact opposites in Hair Metal.

Its great that Gilby has reinvigorated MC5 :lol: And really, a twerking Erin Everly stage right might take them to the summits of rock stardom.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must spend most my day reading emails saying to myself " What a fucking idiot " No idea how half these people ending up getting a job here.

 

I guess the blind lead the blind.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

I must spend most my day reading emails saying to myself " What a fucking idiot " No idea how half these people ending up getting a job here.

 

I guess the blind lead the blind.

Thats me going through the inbox too! Gets so frustrating. Unless Im tired or holding a baby then peoples stupidity just makes me sad for the future. 

My Gmail has those suggested auto responses, I wonder if the algorithms will tailor those to responses I actually write? Soon the auto responses will be sarcastic and dismissive :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, soon said:

Thats me going through the inbox too! Gets so frustrating. Unless Im tired or holding a baby then peoples stupidity just makes me sad for the future. 

My Gmail has those suggested auto responses, I wonder if the algorithms will tailor those to responses I actually write? Soon the auto responses will be sarcastic and dismissive :lol:

My automated response is normally 

 

Please seek further training in relation to the handling of this task.

Edited by lukepowell1988

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

My automated response is normally 

 

Please seek further training in relation o the handling of this task.

Ah, much more constructive then mine then. If that doesnt do the trick nothing will. No doubt everyones already an expert in their own mind, though. :facepalm:

Im my world its too many people per thread, recreating the wheel every time a standard task comes up. Sometimes Im supposed to be their cheerleaders and well, lets just say that its a good thing the communication is via email 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×