Comments

Dismissing a band’s legacy because of what it inspired is a total shame. Every great band has spawned wretched imitators, so instead why not praise it for the good bands who twisted the influence into something worthwhile. For every Soil/Drowning Pool/Spineshank etc., you could give credit for the success of a band like Lamb of God (controversial choice, maybe, but the stronger output far outweighs the bland, in this case.) It’s like dismissing AC/DC as a whole simply because of, I don't know, Jet? Pantera didn't really have the opportunity to age, so that point doesn't really get off the ground. Still, Metallica transitioned because of skill limitations. Anthrax, while continuing to release records, struggled in transition as well because of lineup adjustments. Slayer released 2 records of original material in the 90's, and one of those was nu-metal misstep Diabolus. While Pantera was continuing to somehow gain momentum with mid-career weird-yet-uncompromising/interesting stuff like The Great Southern Trendkill, Megadeth was dumping out Cryptic Writings and Risk. I don't see how straying from an original sound to something stale is a credit. Plus, there is currently an entire "re-thrash" scene rife with imitators. Near 20 year old production might make it sound less pummelling, but i'd still put this performance up against just about anything: http://youtu.be/e2Yy__sxseg
I don't mean to sound dismissive, but I don't even know where to start with this. You've put forth some valid points, but expressed them in ways that nearly disqualify them.
Such an absolutely crucial game-changer. "Mouth for War" into "A New Level" remains one of the strongest opening 1-2 punches in hard music history. Thanks for this.
I won't argue that. The nominations for the category mentioned are already flawed - Anvil is a sentimental choice and we all love to see them keeping at it, but a band like Threat Signal is more deserving, on a music level (although then I'm falling into the black hole of award merit.) The nominations do seem to be based on a "who has been at this the longest and still going" mentality, and if Townsend doesn't win it'll be a sham, but I fully expected this category to be a catch-all for junk like Three Days Grace, so I was pleasently surprised.
I'm defending the fact that the bands who arguably struggle and work the hardest of all the respective nominated genres are finally being acknowledged on a bigger scale. This kind of exposure can make a big difference for the guys in KEN mode, you know? So, yes? In the sense that awards like these can mean the most to those who don't actually strive for them, I guess I am?
I gotta say, when they announced the inclusion of a new "Metal/Hard" category I was pretty skeptical, but they actually did a decent job. A Juno won't mean much for the bigger name acts, but for Fuck the Facts and he-who-should-win Devin Townsend to be recognized is pretty cool.
Exactly. The poor girl is much more digestible live when she's not wandering around, shoved into some gown. Putting her in something youthful and Layne Staley-ing her movement makes a big difference.
I believe the claim against SNL sound is relative to the stage itself. Some artists can deal with it (those who've paid serious dues dealing with these limitations), whereas some have more trouble (those who have a career go from 5mph to 200mph in a few months.) Her live vocals are never as bad as people claim them to be. Her stage presence has a long way to go. It seems she feels the need to embellish the vocals, which the music doesn't require.
"My only trending topic is the caaash." A Twitter reference never sounded so cool.
That G&T General 7B epitomizes _everything_ that is wrong with pencils. They should be taking shots from every pencil user. I’m glad you haven’t bought-in enough to remain silent.
Somewhere there’s a Nickelback fan who is really passionate about pencils. Nothing turns that person on more than discovering a new pencil that offers them a different experience that what they’re familiar with, or slipping into the groove of a pencil type they love with some easily digestible modern hard rock playing in the background. Nothing frustrates that person more than watching the general public snatching up regular old boring pencils when there’s so much diversity out there. Some people like ballet, some knitting, some baking, some wine. Everyone likes music. Hopefully 2012 will be the year people who don’t like Nickelback stop talking about Nickelback. It’s so boring now.
That's the beauty of Vai: he's so outrageously cheesy in that "you go girl" kind of way and I love him for it. It adds to it all. If he was the exact same player but dressed like say, Lenny Kravitz, it would all kind of stink, wouldn't it? The costume aspect of it is without a doubt a conscious decision, because he doesn't dress like that offstage. Flashy and ridiculous outfits with flashy and ridiculous music. Malmsteen is the same: total doofus, arrogant, costume-y (openly credits Paganini influence) and absolutely rips. He has tremendous tone, great vibrato, and singlehandedly pioneered neo-classical shred (understanding Ritchie Blackmore's role,) and he's not on that list (I don't think. It's impossible to quickly navigate the stupid RS site article quickly) but Peter Greene is? Stupid.
Again, it's complicated because it depends on how you personally define the skill of a player. The Hendrix trademark is definitely a wild, mutated blues/funk/rock hybrid, but he did come from a session background. He's no slouch with the instrument. Little Wing is a pretty accomplished piece and showcases some of the open chord progressions he was known for. He was both important and good with the instrument. While we're defending the uncool, I previously mentioned Vai, who to me is probably the most impressive and technically gifted human to ever pick up the instrument. Have you seen the live version of Tender Surrender? (http://youtu.be/Yw74sDWPH7U) I mean, if you can get beyond his "never relevant in any era suit", the hip swivels, puckers, hair obsession, and general aspect of Vai as a mystical hoodoo voodoo Lydian legato machine (it's a lot, I know), this thing has moments that are jaw-dropping and still flips my wig so many years later. But it still brings me back to the combo-deal; Hendrix is a tasty, creative player, wrote some classic songs, was "cool", and revolutionized the electric guitar. Interestingly I, too, independently thought of the painter analogy, and the one you presented is bulletproof. It's a pushover choice, because we do fundamentally agree that creating this kind of list is a mug's game. But if forced, for me it's like, fine, Hendrix.
The only reason I used All Along the Watchtower as an example was to provide gravity with a connection to arguably the greatest singer-songwriter of all time. His own song credits are just as, if not more impressive (Hey Joe, Voodoo Chile, Foxy Lady, Are you Experienced?, Purple Haze.) I think a high percentage of artists would be pleased to release a 5 song greatest hits record that strong. But as explained, you could draw value from several areas of musicianship to gauge the "value" of each player. So while songwriting doesn't need to be crucial, it certainly should play a part. I mean, Derek Trucks is on that list and Steve Vai isn't, which to me is absolutely appalling. And Vai isn't particularly known for his songwriting, so I don't totally disagree with you. The concession, in the end, is taste. Yes, there are players who used an instrument as extension, I just think Hendrix did it a lot better. And that partnered with what I've previously said plays into your list of other guitarists (I'm unfamiliar with Yamashita and Christian.) They're all tremendous talents. Total specialists. But I do give value to the gift of taking a specialized skill and turning it into something universal. Are they victims of style or era? Sure, some of them. Did they revolutionize the guitar? Yes, in some kind of way they all probably did. I mean, Friday Night in San Francisco is a terrifying listen, right? But it's very specific. Not to say the entire careers of de Lucia, Di Meola, and McLaughlan should be measured against that live record, but their 3 careers combined don't come close to the importance or influence of Hendrix (with no disrespect.) So in my mind, resonating with teenagers and inspiring them to pick up a guitar is a side effect of Hendrix's greatness. Kids still want to do dive-bombs and copy the wah'd intro to Voodoo Chile, forty years later. And those things don't even scratch the surface of what he brought to the game. I have personal choices and influences who are more significant to me, but I have to give it up for Jimi Hendrix. Taste becomes our divide.
Yeah, she did those awkward hand gestures live. Luckily you only see her say the "let's go get high" bit in the video once. She mimed it every time onstage. Also, unimportant sidenote: I'm pretty sure there's still only one tiger in the video. Don't be fooled by fancy computers, Stereogum.
Apologies for the length. Ok. I mean, I get the web comment section idea of "shoot first...", but you are using some bold language. You've admitted to not being able to stand behind the statement despite originally claiming it to be factually accurate (I'm not using quotation marks here because, I get it,) but man oh man I couldn't disagree more. So it depends on the assigned parameters of what makes a "great guitarist." If the qualification is simply whether or not there are better players out there, you're absolutely right, he isn't the greatest. But you're a musician and guitar player, so I can't accept that to be your sole gauge. Let's assume the measures of the Rolling Stone selections: - Ability - Songwriting - Influence - X-Factor This breakdown allows for Cobain, because his Influence and Songwriting percentages would be so elevated, whereas a Randy Rhoads, while having strong songwriting and influence, ranks higher in Ability and X-Factor. Your notion of a player being "not as good as people who don’t really know" is justifiable to a guy like Kirk Hammett, who among guitar players is universally accepted as a wretched player, but helped write some great songs. If I were to assign percentages to Hendrix, each option would be off-the-charts. Hendrix the "musician" is burdened with a lot of lame clichés (ex: the guitar was an extension his body), but they actually do apply. He did play through the instrument. Is it genius? Probably? If you think about guys like Oscar Peterson or Keith Jarrett, one thread is how they sing what they're playing. It's hearing notes in your head and being able to articulate sound via strings and wood without thought. Hendrix did that; he looked at the neck and in his head knew the sound that could be expected from each fret. Listen to "Machine Gun" from the live Band of Gypsys; the idea of playing a 13 minute instrumental that evokes participating in the Vietnam War may now seem preposterous, but holy hell does he pull it off. He was a virtuoso that people don't think of as being a virtuoso. He made a Bob Dylan song so famous that many think it is his own. Any time a band destroys their instruments it is traced back to him. Any time someone hacks their way through an electric guitar-ified national anthem, that's Hendrix. He flipped the instrument, both literally and figuratively, and did things that had never been done before, and in a lot of ways haven't been done as well since. And he did pretty much all of that over a mere 4 years.
I know this isn't really the best place for this, but if the greatness of a guitar player was somehow quantifiable and ranked into a list, Jimi Hendrix wouldn't be on it? And that is factually accurate and not up for debate? My approach isn't hostile, here, but I can see that statement being somehow super controversial because it's debatable on a wholesale level.
Agreed. The Awake EP rips so hard.
This may be horribly obvious (apologies if it is), but the embed really kills the audio quality. If you watch it on the youtube page the sound is a lot better.
"yes and the same useless comment repeatedly…" <- useful comment
there site froze when i commented three times posteed
Like almost all modern Metallica, the song is twice as long as it should be. Mostly because modern Metallica songs are essentially a 4 minute song played twice though. The main riff is lifted from Fuel, which is probably why it wasn't originally released. Sadly, Metallica playing swiftly no longer gives muscle by default. They did all of this so much better 20+ years ago.
Like almost all modern Metallica, the song is twice as long as it should be. Mostly because modern Metallica songs are essentially a 4 minute song played twice though. The main riff is lifted from Fuel, which is probably why it wasn't originally released. Sadly, Metallica playing swiftly no longer gives muscle by default. They did all of this so much better 20+ years ago.
Like almost all modern Metallica, the song is twice as long as it should be. Mostly because modern Metallica songs are essentially a 4 minute song played twice though. The main riff is lifted from Fuel, which is probably why it wasn't originally released. Sadly, Metallica playing swiftly no longer gives muscle by default. They did all of this so much better 20+ years ago.
I see Michael continues to criticize LDR despite consistently being almost the quickest to comment on everything posted about her. You know what they say about protesting too much. LDR has been quoted in interviews saying she’s involved in the song-writing process, so whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. The reality is the most common criticisms/arguments against her are: - indie vs. non-indie - songwriter vs. “manufactured” - enhancements The reality OF those criticisms/arguments is that most people don’t really care, and her success is not dependant on those things. Here’s what we know, in terms of “Lana Del Rey” the artist/performer: - her image perfectly suits the music - the average music listener finds her music appealing Here’s what I think: aesthetically she’s a new Lily Allen – internet star, often criticized about her looks, takes credit for writing, probably little lasting power. Her voice is strong live, the unfamiliar material has promise, but her stage-presence is excruciating; she’s not a natural performer and isn't remotely close to knowing who she is onstage. But that's the world we live in; where overnight successes are actually literal. Her chances at stardom would be increased if she dressed in flow-y gowns, changed her lyrics and became a new Enya, as her music isn’t too far from that already.
"metal fans usually hate punk." They do? I'm not saying Skeletonwitch is bad, but they're not even close to being as good as people want them to be, based on their name and image. I'm shocked Decapitated isn't showing on any lists, as its new record is far superior to Heritage, which was as mind-blowingly impressive as it was mind-blowingly forgettable. Hate Eternal, Obscura, and Revocation - all great records.
I blame the creators of Guitar Hero: Metallica for all of this. And Lou Reed's grandchildren for letting him take the mic. Does Lou Reed have grandchildren? Whatever.
You’re making too many assumptions. “it just shouldn’t be written about on a blog that showcases off-kilter music in it’s various forms.” That is not for you to decide. “it’s just an audience-gauging misstep.” You’re assuming that all readers add comments, which I’m sure isn’t the case. Just because the majority of what has been discussed is negative, the overall opinion of Stereogum readership towards this artist can’t be gauged based on the comment section. “at this point in her career, doesn’t make the cut.” Add “I feel” before “doesn’t make the cut”, and your point has more value. You made your opinion clear of the music with ample histrionics; I just don’t see why a music site that discusses Rihanna and Beyonce can’t discuss Miranda Lambert, who, like those examples, records pop music that’s simply played with different instruments. I know you were joking.
I said “like Drake”, so feel free to insert Kanye, Waka Flocka Flame, T.I., or any other mainstream Hip Hop artist generally accepted by the “indie crowd”. You ever hear of Pavlo? The mediocre flamenco guitar player from Toronto who made a load of cash when he was illegally sampled by R. Kelly? Yes, I know Kelly gets the “indie” stamp of approval but probably not for acknowledging an independent artist. Do you even remember what the previous Album of the Week was? It was Black Tusk, there were 5 posted comments. Have you listened to it? I can only speculate that most readers simply accepted that a Heavy band got the nod and moved on, because Heavy music is “cool”. If this is like darts on ESPN, you have the choice to not read or change the channel. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be on or written about. I can (literally) throw a rock from my backyard and it would land on Degrassi St., and I don’t think Drake gets a pass. Not sure where that leaves that argument.
To those melting down: are you telling me an artist like Drake isn’t the product of massive music machinery? I don’t see comment sections with the same reaction to him than what’s shown here. So he “belongs” here but this doesn’t? This is the music your country probably does better than any other place in the entire world, and I’d prefer to hear about it from someone with a perspective similar to mine than some Country-exclusive blog. Nothing incites White on White crime more than a bit of Nashville on a site for US, not THEM. Sheezus.
St. Anger never sounded so good.
@martel04 If you don’t want to waste your time with what you feel is her bland material that’s perfectly acceptable, and it would be foolish to try to convince you otherwise. When I forwarded or played her songs for a few others, the immediate reaction was as positive as mine, but clearly that wasn’t the case with you. There is no right or wrong here. The music works like a score set to what is clearly a calculated image, which is fine because the combination is complimentary. That said, I do feel the score is a success on its own. At 24, she may at least be proving herself to be one of the more savvy manipulators of modern internet and culture.
Michael, Your fixation on a band or artist being legitimate based on working the road doesn't work at all. The bands you listed (Minor Threat, Black Flag, Sonic Youth) all chose a style of music that was far from mainstream, therefore they accepted a limited fanbase which, if committed to music as a career, dictates that lifestyle. Your other examples (Springsteen, Bowie) had more mass appeal and were ushered through a system designed to satisfy the expected demand based on tremendous talent. The reality is the talent will always rise to the top, but the success and exposure will be limited to how much mass appeal the genre has. So Black Flag is one of the most successful hardcore bands with limited appeal, and i'd say the band cares far less about that than you do. Del Rey wouldn't be talked about if the songs (three, by the way, with one b-side) didn't back up however the hell she or anyone else wants to present her. And I can qualify that by saying that because I have a heck of an opinion about music, which you may disagree with, so who is right and who isn't. But i'm definitely right about the following: there are a lot of terrible bands working really hard on the road making really bad music, and I'd prefer to listed to Lana over those touring bands any day. The argument about touring vs. packaged is boring.
It's also not very accurate. Pearl Jam was pretty riff based, which isn't the case with bands like Nickelback/Creed etc. The careers of Kroeger and Co. are far more indebted to heavier bands like Alice in Chains.