Yeah, exactly Duke. The truth is that no one knows who is important until down the road you look back and say "yes, that was the moment... when the Duke invoked the tennis ball and Kirsten as She..." and so on.
27 -
Vern Halen
Mar 31, 2005 at 11:58 pm
YOu all are gonna hate this...U2 is the last great rock band, for any number of reasons. And I don't even like them that much.
They're the only ones who could come within striking distance of the stature of the Beatles, Stones, Zep, et. al. I mean, who else of the new (well, U2 is actually gettin' old) bands could keep company with the giants of music history?
28 -
gonzo marx
Apr 01, 2005 at 12:08 am
ummm...define "giants" please..then perhaps i can respond with a modicum of panache...
heh...
as far as sales and overall "pop" magnitude...you can make a case fo ryer point..
not to run down the boys from U2..not my style..but i can appreciate it..
but really...as far as Important..besides to their recording company, and the fans that enjoy them...what elevates them to being .."Important" in your view?
I think that was the point I was trying to make in #1. History decides what is/what is important in its own time. "Next Big Thing" gets tossed around all the time... even on a debut album.
How many bands flame out on the second record? And in this current music environment, a shit second record can end your career. Remember when Strokes and White Stripes were the next big thing? I am suspicious of Libertines/Babyshambles. They hit it big once and made a big splash. Will it resonate 20 minutes from now let alone 20 years from now? Maybe it will. We do not know. And we do not get to judge that. History will do it for us.
Alabama 3 was the oddest musical outfit to arise from late-'90s London. They were also the most original. The band's origins are shrouded in urban myth -- the band like to claim that the three core members met in rehab, while their Southern accents have many believing they are from the U.S. state of Alabama, although it appears vocalists Rob Spragg and Jake Black met at a London rave when Spragg heard Black singing Hank Williams' "Lost Highway." Bonding, they set out about creating an agenda of Americana, electronica, left politics, and laughter. Joined by DJ Piers Marsh, the trio issued two 12" dance singles that combined their interest in gospel and country music yet these went over the heads of the London dance scene. In Italy, where Spragg and Black began singing Howlin' Wolf songs over Marsh mixes, the idea of the band began to take shape and back in Brixton, South London, they recruited a crew of musicians to shape their vision. This, combined with brilliantly theatrical live shows, meant the band attracted a huge South London following long before they had a record deal.
Signed to One Little Indian, their 1997 debut, Exile on Coldharbour Lane, was a groundbreaking work that effortlessly fused gospel, country, blues, and house music. Dubbed "chemical country," Alabama 3 broke down the barriers between line dancers and ravers. The band's penchant for absurdity was displayed in Spragg and Black's insistence on singing, rapping, and preaching in deep Southern accents alongside samples of cult leader Jim Jones preaching Maoist philosophy and the renaming of all members -- Spragg became Larry Love, Black became the Reverend D. Wayne Love. Yet the songs were strong and imaginative and their observations on contemporary U.K. were spot on: country and blues were used to look at the excesses of dance culture. All with a pumping 808 beat behind them. The band was picked up on by U.K. roots DJs Charlie Gillet and Andy Kershaw, but the U.K. music press, in the height of its infatuation with Brit-pop, ignored the group or derided them as a novelty. Fortunately, U.S. audiences displayed a greater degree of irony and cult TV series The Sopranos employed the band's "Woke Up This Morning" as it's theme music. Unfortunately, country-lite vocal outfit Alabama sued over the group's name which means in the U.S. Alabama 3 are now known as A3.
Album number two, La Peste, followed in 2000 and found the band in more muted form. Again, the gospel-country-blues axis was there and the shows were wonderfully outrageous but it appeared that two years of touring and a stronger awareness of the mounting casualties of rave culture and New Labour Britain had made the band wear a bleaker face. Where their debut cheekily nodded at the Stones' seminal double album, La Peste shared with it a bleak, murky sound that demanded the listener dig into the songs to discover their meaning. Again, the album failed to reach beyond a cult audience which makes one wonder -- are Alabama 3 simply too original for these conformist times? ~ Garth Cartwright, All Music Guide
I'm always quick to shout "The Pixies!" when I see something like this. While they certainly weren't the first or the only to pick up the punk thread of the late seventies and early eighties and run with it, they are a solid part of the foundation of grunge and the lighter, more melodic sounds I tend to refer to as neo-punk. I am not sure that bands/performers like Sublime, Beck and Nirvana, hey, maybe even the White Stripes, definitely Modest Mouse, and tons of other people I can't think of right now would exist if it hadn't been for The Pixies.
And they're still going. So yeah, I think there are a few out there, who did something influential and important to music. The Pixies did whatever they felt like doing at the moment, with music, with language, with lyrics, and a lot of performers used that as a springboard to find their own niche(s).
I'm usually kind of thrilled when a band falls back under the radar of feeling the pressure of being the "next big thing."
It would be the best thing for everyone if a band like The White Stripes settled down into a moderately successful band. Then the fans (like me) can just sit back and take in masterpiece after masterpiece without all the media hype and bullshit.
in an era where so many people are famous for 15 minutes, I hope the entertainment and media industries forgive me if I cease to pay them so much attention.
34 -
SFC SKI
Apr 01, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Exactly right, alienboy.
35 -
Vern Halen
Apr 01, 2005 at 7:20 pm
U2 - I guess it's a number of things, each in and of itself not a big deal, but:
1) album sales
2) political / religious stance - when was thhe last time Iggy Pop got to visit a Head of State & talk about his concerns?
3) recognisable to many people in general
4) haven't changed their personnel - so have a certain consistency in image - a debateable point
5) have explored their musical roots without having done 180 degree flip flops in style - although that point is debateable too
6) have a distinct sound
7) uh, how can I put this - to my ears, they sound like a rock band, not a pop band
8) they have a traditional rock band lineup
9) their songs are catchy enough to be hummable - they're not an atonal or experimental band
10) Aw, I'm not real good at constructing arguments - would've dropped out of law school had I ever bothered to enroll. I mean, I like the Velvets, Ramones, etc. and even some more obscure stuff like Died Pretty & Green On Red & Jack Logan, but there's no way they'l impact most people in any way at all. A new U2 album or tour is still an event to both fans and critics, and U2 can still rock, which is more than you can say for some other Most Important Bands in Rock and Roll that are way past their best before date.
I mean, I know everyone has their personal faves, but really, who else would fit the profile?
I'm a little confused. Isn't this post about important bands of today? Not the past. Today. That means you can't bring up The Beatles, U2, the Pixies, etc., even Radiohead. Those are bands of the past. They have already been cemented in the annals of greatness - you're still talking about them, right? There is no question as to their placement among the greats. So let's focus on relatively new bands, which is why I brought up TV On The Radio before, and I'm doing so again.
I mention the Pixies specifically because they did come back out of nowhere, got together, started touring again, and already released a new song and have confirmed a new album.
Having seen them at Coachella last year, I can vouch that they're as amazing as ever. Though I do see your point; they are only a band of "today" by a technicality.
But very few bands are ever important at the moment they're at their peak. It takes time to establish an influence - for most bands and performers. There have been a few notable exceptions.
38 -
Vern Halen
Apr 02, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Point taken, Mr. Johnson. Maybe I'm just out of touch with today's music scene, but I don't think the scene (whatever that means) is the same as it used to be. Maybe there can't be any bands important in the same way as bands once were. There seems to be too much compartmentalization & fractioning in the industry for any one band or artist to build much momentum to thrust them into a position of importance.
39 -
Alex Rawls
Apr 02, 2005 at 3:48 pm
This thread seems to have missed the challenge a bit. Retrospectively assessing importance is pretty easy - or easier, anyway - but as Tom says, what about today? When the first Ramones album came out, I knew I was hearing something new and changing. Same for the Clash, same for U2, and the same for Nirvana's "Nevermind." History may have validated the feelings I and a few hundred thousand other people had, but there was a sense in the moment that you were hearing something important. I hear a lot of music I like these days, but I'm not sure I hear anything important right now. The closest I've felt recently was seeing the Arcade Fire earliest this year, primarily because so many people were so into the show. I'm not entirely convinced, though, and fear too many bands seem content with addressing their niche markets.
40 -
SFC SKI
Apr 02, 2005 at 5:47 pm
It's not just that the sound is so new or groundbreaking, it's that some bands get the sound so right, two more cases in point: Webb Wilder, a man who must so obviously love music that he can play a cover faithful to the original, but so damn good at what he does he cab take those pieces of an original and make them something classic instantly. Second, the Smithereens, these guys ate, slept and lived pop and rock, and most of their songs are boht orignal but again fall right into the pop and rock classics mold in the best sense of the word.
Whoever it was who said there are few important bands because they don't stick around long enough got it half right, I believe it's that many of them never get heard for all the crap that overshadows them.
Article comments
26 - Eric Berlin
Yeah, exactly Duke. The truth is that no one knows who is important until down the road you look back and say "yes, that was the moment... when the Duke invoked the tennis ball and Kirsten as She..." and so on.
27 - Vern Halen
YOu all are gonna hate this...U2 is the last great rock band, for any number of reasons. And I don't even like them that much.
They're the only ones who could come within striking distance of the stature of the Beatles, Stones, Zep, et. al. I mean, who else of the new (well, U2 is actually gettin' old) bands could keep company with the giants of music history?
28 - gonzo marx
ummm...define "giants" please..then perhaps i can respond with a modicum of panache...
heh...
as far as sales and overall "pop" magnitude...you can make a case fo ryer point..
not to run down the boys from U2..not my style..but i can appreciate it..
but really...as far as Important..besides to their recording company, and the fans that enjoy them...what elevates them to being .."Important" in your view?
Excelsior!
29 - DJRadiohead
I think that was the point I was trying to make in #1. History decides what is/what is important in its own time. "Next Big Thing" gets tossed around all the time... even on a debut album.
How many bands flame out on the second record? And in this current music environment, a shit second record can end your career. Remember when Strokes and White Stripes were the next big thing? I am suspicious of Libertines/Babyshambles. They hit it big once and made a big splash. Will it resonate 20 minutes from now let alone 20 years from now? Maybe it will. We do not know. And we do not get to judge that. History will do it for us.
30 - Gunnfan
Alabama 3 was the oddest musical outfit to arise from late-'90s London. They were also the most original. The band's origins are shrouded in urban myth -- the band like to claim that the three core members met in rehab, while their Southern accents have many believing they are from the U.S. state of Alabama, although it appears vocalists Rob Spragg and Jake Black met at a London rave when Spragg heard Black singing Hank Williams' "Lost Highway." Bonding, they set out about creating an agenda of Americana, electronica, left politics, and laughter. Joined by DJ Piers Marsh, the trio issued two 12" dance singles that combined their interest in gospel and country music yet these went over the heads of the London dance scene. In Italy, where Spragg and Black began singing Howlin' Wolf songs over Marsh mixes, the idea of the band began to take shape and back in Brixton, South London, they recruited a crew of musicians to shape their vision. This, combined with brilliantly theatrical live shows, meant the band attracted a huge South London following long before they had a record deal.
Signed to One Little Indian, their 1997 debut, Exile on Coldharbour Lane, was a groundbreaking work that effortlessly fused gospel, country, blues, and house music. Dubbed "chemical country," Alabama 3 broke down the barriers between line dancers and ravers. The band's penchant for absurdity was displayed in Spragg and Black's insistence on singing, rapping, and preaching in deep Southern accents alongside samples of cult leader Jim Jones preaching Maoist philosophy and the renaming of all members -- Spragg became Larry Love, Black became the Reverend D. Wayne Love. Yet the songs were strong and imaginative and their observations on contemporary U.K. were spot on: country and blues were used to look at the excesses of dance culture. All with a pumping 808 beat behind them. The band was picked up on by U.K. roots DJs Charlie Gillet and Andy Kershaw, but the U.K. music press, in the height of its infatuation with Brit-pop, ignored the group or derided them as a novelty. Fortunately, U.S. audiences displayed a greater degree of irony and cult TV series The Sopranos employed the band's "Woke Up This Morning" as it's theme music. Unfortunately, country-lite vocal outfit Alabama sued over the group's name which means in the U.S. Alabama 3 are now known as A3.
Album number two, La Peste, followed in 2000 and found the band in more muted form. Again, the gospel-country-blues axis was there and the shows were wonderfully outrageous but it appeared that two years of touring and a stronger awareness of the mounting casualties of rave culture and New Labour Britain had made the band wear a bleaker face. Where their debut cheekily nodded at the Stones' seminal double album, La Peste shared with it a bleak, murky sound that demanded the listener dig into the songs to discover their meaning. Again, the album failed to reach beyond a cult audience which makes one wonder -- are Alabama 3 simply too original for these conformist times? ~ Garth Cartwright, All Music Guide
31 - LegendaryMonkey
I'm always quick to shout "The Pixies!" when I see something like this. While they certainly weren't the first or the only to pick up the punk thread of the late seventies and early eighties and run with it, they are a solid part of the foundation of grunge and the lighter, more melodic sounds I tend to refer to as neo-punk. I am not sure that bands/performers like Sublime, Beck and Nirvana, hey, maybe even the White Stripes, definitely Modest Mouse, and tons of other people I can't think of right now would exist if it hadn't been for The Pixies.
And they're still going. So yeah, I think there are a few out there, who did something influential and important to music. The Pixies did whatever they felt like doing at the moment, with music, with language, with lyrics, and a lot of performers used that as a springboard to find their own niche(s).
32 - Eric Berlin
I'm usually kind of thrilled when a band falls back under the radar of feeling the pressure of being the "next big thing."
It would be the best thing for everyone if a band like The White Stripes settled down into a moderately successful band. Then the fans (like me) can just sit back and take in masterpiece after masterpiece without all the media hype and bullshit.
If that's important, I'll take it!
33 - alienboy
in an era where so many people are famous for 15 minutes, I hope the entertainment and media industries forgive me if I cease to pay them so much attention.
34 - SFC SKI
Exactly right, alienboy.
35 - Vern Halen
U2 - I guess it's a number of things, each in and of itself not a big deal, but:
1) album sales
2) political / religious stance - when was thhe last time Iggy Pop got to visit a Head of State & talk about his concerns?
3) recognisable to many people in general
4) haven't changed their personnel - so have a certain consistency in image - a debateable point
5) have explored their musical roots without having done 180 degree flip flops in style - although that point is debateable too
6) have a distinct sound
7) uh, how can I put this - to my ears, they sound like a rock band, not a pop band
8) they have a traditional rock band lineup
9) their songs are catchy enough to be hummable - they're not an atonal or experimental band
10) Aw, I'm not real good at constructing arguments - would've dropped out of law school had I ever bothered to enroll. I mean, I like the Velvets, Ramones, etc. and even some more obscure stuff like Died Pretty & Green On Red & Jack Logan, but there's no way they'l impact most people in any way at all. A new U2 album or tour is still an event to both fans and critics, and U2 can still rock, which is more than you can say for some other Most Important Bands in Rock and Roll that are way past their best before date.
I mean, I know everyone has their personal faves, but really, who else would fit the profile?
36 - Tom Johnson
I'm a little confused. Isn't this post about important bands of today? Not the past. Today. That means you can't bring up The Beatles, U2, the Pixies, etc., even Radiohead. Those are bands of the past. They have already been cemented in the annals of greatness - you're still talking about them, right? There is no question as to their placement among the greats. So let's focus on relatively new bands, which is why I brought up TV On The Radio before, and I'm doing so again.
37 - LegendaryMonkey
I mention the Pixies specifically because they did come back out of nowhere, got together, started touring again, and already released a new song and have confirmed a new album.
Having seen them at Coachella last year, I can vouch that they're as amazing as ever. Though I do see your point; they are only a band of "today" by a technicality.
But very few bands are ever important at the moment they're at their peak. It takes time to establish an influence - for most bands and performers. There have been a few notable exceptions.
38 - Vern Halen
Point taken, Mr. Johnson. Maybe I'm just out of touch with today's music scene, but I don't think the scene (whatever that means) is the same as it used to be. Maybe there can't be any bands important in the same way as bands once were. There seems to be too much compartmentalization & fractioning in the industry for any one band or artist to build much momentum to thrust them into a position of importance.
39 - Alex Rawls
This thread seems to have missed the challenge a bit. Retrospectively assessing importance is pretty easy - or easier, anyway - but as Tom says, what about today? When the first Ramones album came out, I knew I was hearing something new and changing. Same for the Clash, same for U2, and the same for Nirvana's "Nevermind." History may have validated the feelings I and a few hundred thousand other people had, but there was a sense in the moment that you were hearing something important. I hear a lot of music I like these days, but I'm not sure I hear anything important right now. The closest I've felt recently was seeing the Arcade Fire earliest this year, primarily because so many people were so into the show. I'm not entirely convinced, though, and fear too many bands seem content with addressing their niche markets.
40 - SFC SKI
It's not just that the sound is so new or groundbreaking, it's that some bands get the sound so right, two more cases in point: Webb Wilder, a man who must so obviously love music that he can play a cover faithful to the original, but so damn good at what he does he cab take those pieces of an original and make them something classic instantly. Second, the Smithereens, these guys ate, slept and lived pop and rock, and most of their songs are boht orignal but again fall right into the pop and rock classics mold in the best sense of the word.
Whoever it was who said there are few important bands because they don't stick around long enough got it half right, I believe it's that many of them never get heard for all the crap that overshadows them.
41 - John Lyndon
Rush suuuu uuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuu uuuu
uuu uuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuu uucccc cccccccccccccckkkkkk kkkkk kkkkkk kkkk kkkkksssssssss ssss!
Geddy Lee can eat shit and die!
Fucking irrelevant long-haired hippies
42 - Bromley Cont.
Note to Gonzo Marx;
Your taste in music is as banal as a cornflower blue oxford shirt with pleated khakis.
Please stop being a stupid cunt.
Thanks!
43 - Thad Anderson
Wilco - because they take classic American rock songwriting and meld it with modern sounds
Radiohead - because they keep pushing the boundaries
Queens of the Stone Age - because they pick one thing (rocking incredibly hard) and do it well
44 - gonzo marx
to Bromly
you are entitled to your opinion...
and fuck no
K?
thanx
Excelsior!