Tiassa
09-16-02, 09:19 PM
I can see your point about System of a Down, I just can't see them grouped with Puddle of Mudd. What about Tool, or Rage Against the Machine? Both are very popular, but i don't think that they fit into this group. What's your opinion on these bands?This started in another topic, in reference to the cheapness of pop culture and an asserted lack of artistic merit therein. Does that pull everybody to the same page, or at least enough so to go on?
With apologies to Lokee, for this is long overdue.
If you throw enough darts at a board, you're bound to hit a bullseye eventually. Ask any drunk at a local bar. Major-label record companies are a lot like this. Given that the packaging of the last Tool album (as I recall) was expensive cellophane at the objections of the record label, I would hope to establish a certain difference of perspective 'twixt the band and BMG, its parent label. Furthermore, it looks like BMG either founded or acquired, or else bought distribution rights from other labels.
Tool is a legitimate phenomenon. Their influences are apparent to some, but they do not seem to borrow overtly. Technically, they are trend-setters, and while I don't see them as having the same impact as a Nirvana or Pearl Jam, I do see them as being approximately as influential as Radiohead is turning out to be. And Tool's live shows ... The Melvins were the loudest band I'd ever heard. And then one day they opened for Tool. I didn't see a pop concert that night. Tool put on a full-blown heavy metal artistic tantrum. This is something that, having witnessed it, I cannot deny. And the videos? High art for the pop culture. I've heard some pretty inane babblings about the meaning of the videos, but I'm impressed at the fact that people have generally identified the core components of the artistic expression. It seems that Tool is very adept at communicating ideas through art. How can I argue?
Of Rage Against the Machine, a couple of things need to be put up front. First, I found most of that hyperactive ranting music annoying to the ear, and thus was never big on Rage. Secondly, I am somewhat of a leftist, and thus appreciate greatly the lyrical politic.
That said, something odd strikes me. With their 1992 Sony/Columbia debut, Rage seems to have been signed in the post-Primus rush. I cannot confrim that. I don't knock Rage on this count. Rather, I don't think the label was fully aware of what it was getting with the deal. Open Red sympathy does not usually resonate well in the popular culture. We do keep Rage around the house on vinyl & CD. I break out the vinyl occasionally. It's not horrible. It's just part of a movement that sonically didn't mesh with me.
Their popularity isn't necessarily hard to imagine. They are capable musicians, as evidenced by the scrapped sessions with Chris Cornell (formerly Soundgarden). We're all amazed: it sounds like an incredible album, but the reason it didn't pan out is obvious--it's not a Rage album. It sounds more like Cornell than it does Rage. I haven't yet matched the song titles yet, but presently I'm listening to "Track 6" as I received it. It sounds like a Soundgarden song. And as the review on the page I looked up to check Rage's label (http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=1790015979/pagename=/RP/CDN/FIND/album.html/artistid=RAGE+AGAINST+THE+MACHINE/itemid=318585) puts it: The band's keen political interest separates it from both its lighthearted contemporaries and the many issue-oriented bands that fail to convincingly mesh music with politics. I find it curious also that the high-profile hijinks designed to get attention were also different from many other popular bands: the attention was intended to go elsewhere than the band. I thought the convention riot was hilarious. The only reason people paid attention to Rage in the political aftermath is that popular leftists are always good for spitting on. But there is no doubt that their politics dragged the Chiapas conflict into the American limelight. That's a pretty decent accomplishment. As artists they've thus far fulfilled their commitments to art, and it seems they hope to continue to do so. I give them a hearty endorsement in the fact that I hope they manage to stay popular without sacrificing their politics or their musical integrity. Strangely (or perhaps not), that's why I respect the scrapping of the Cornell sessions.
Now as relates Puddle of Mudd and System of a Down: these bands still have a chance to convince me, for whatever that is worth. But I don't really see them as setting any musical or artistic trends. The songs a friend of mine constantly played for me were what I call "pretentiously deep", as if there was far too much effort into creating the effect of deep thought as compared to actual deep thinking. All in all, it's a mild accusation; my shelves are covered with that kind of stuff. However, within that heavy sound I prefer other bands that I think show considerably better talent and vision. System of a Down, for instance, once played shows with Floater. Having seen Floater in the days when they were accused of being Tool knockoffs (an unfortunate coincidence, I think) and having seen a show with no more than sixty people in the room, I'm still stunned by what they would do shortly afterward: transcend their utter heaviness, exploit their conceptual and melodic depth, and release the most affecting album I've ever heard, and a candidate for one of the best. (Angels in the Flesh and Devils in the Bone (http://www.floatermusic.com/discography/discography.html)) Having watched a band whose debut album achieved enough recognition to receive a "preliminary" Grammy nomination for Best Rock Album just get better for six and a half years, it just grates on my nerves when a pop band with shallow lyrics and less depth gets recognition just because they're willing to play ball and manufacture a commercial product instead of a piece of art that speaks for itself. (Floater once refused Capital Group for a recording contract because they were unwilling to chop up the album Glyph--produced by Drew Canulette, no less--and pull out the "slow" songs, write and record new "fast" songs and present a 60-minute heavy metal recording composed of badly-chopped "singles"; that's the story as I learned it from one of their effects producer after a show in Salem, Oregon several years ago.) System of a Down and Puddle of Mudd are the Gren and Silverchair of the Tool generation. (See? I told you Tool was a trend-setter.) I've found bands like System of a Down preferable radio chatter to other choices of the pop cultures of yore--Maxi Priest, Wreckx 'n' Effects, Silverchair, just to name a few. System, for instance, I will listen to. Mudvayne and Godsmack, I won't. Mudvayne just doesn't impress me--seen it all before, and better done by bands like Carnivore, King Diamond, and many of the PMRC's 1980s blacklist, and Godsmack could have at least waited until Staley died before butchering the AiC sound into so much rancid hamburger. And throw into that bubblegum bands like Blink 182, who I thankfully haven't heard much from recently, and Linkin Park, who sound good enough to not turn off (A) when I'm really really stoned and willing to listen to anything that distorts sound, and (B) when no member of that outfit is speaking, singing, or otherwise, and suddenly I've lost faith in the heavy rock subculture I used to know and love. (I have been heard to say once, stoned senseless, trapped in a Mitsubishi Eclipse with speakers blaring into my skull, that I would rather listen to New Kids on the Block than ... well, I forget if it was Blink or Linkin, but I think it was Blink. Seriously, the only reason New Kids occurred to me at that moment was because that's what the song sounded like.)
Part of it may be location. When you get to drink and dance with your local musical heroes because they're all at the same shows you are, I do admit a bizarre sense of the scene develops. I still remember seeing Kent 3 and Wellwater Conspiracy play the Sit 'n' Spin. I saw Mark Arm of Mudhoney in the audience, and at the end of the show he stood for a moment deep in thought. I made a joke to a friend that Mudhoney would be playing soon; when he asked why I thought so, I said, "Did you see Mark Arm?" Simply put, it looked like the man was contemplating a show. After all, Kent 3, a local punk band of the post-grunge ascendency got to headline above a Seattle superband featuring members of Soundgarden and (once upon a time) Monster Magnet. Why? Because the bands we get in this town are that good. I can understand how Motley Crüe and Poison could be thought of as good, quality music if one's local scene was clubbing in L.A. when those bands were in the clubs. They certainly were among the most dynamic bands in town, from what I'm told. But the L.A. glam scene never really raised any musical standards; it was a symptom of Elektra wanting the next Alice Cooper, but only looking at shock value. Don't get me wrong, Motley Crüe was good in their own right, but "On With the Show" ain't "Only Women Bleed", and "She Goes Down" most certainly isn't "Raped and Freezing". But come on, when Pearl Jam's current drummer, a former Soundgarden bassist, and an original member of Monster Magnet (see Spine of God (http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=1790015979/pagename=/RP/CDN/FIND/album.html/artistid=MONSTER+MAGNET/itemid=23566)) are opening for a local punk band ... well, it seems unusual. Understand, please, Seattle's music scene in the 1990's bore a family tree that was downright incestuous. At some point, with absolutely no manufactured pop-culture in town, you start wondering when the pop culture is going to get this good.
Last example: Pearl Jam. I could never have imagined on release day of Ten, that it would go this far. Strangely, I think the label knew exactly what it had. PolyGram had signed Mother Love Bone, who recorded Apple, and were set to open for Guns 'n' Roses in 1990 until their frontman died. From those ashes came a graceful, somehow quiet A&M release by Temple of the Dog, a tribute to the fallen Andrew Wood.° I think Epic had a pretty good idea of what they were getting when they signed the band Mookie Blaylock. I heard Temple of the Dog when the album came out; the public didn't get to it until after both Pearl Jam and Soundgarden were on MTV. However, Temple was on A&M, a major label. Epic knew very well what it was getting. They'd already heard it. This is, of course, more than we can say for Geffen, who allegedly signed Nirvana as a condition for signing Sonic Youth.
Good music does find its way into the pop culture. But what puts most albums on the charts is controversy. I know a lot of people who think Lenny Kravitz is good, and so do I on most days; he's a very fine musician, no doubt, but I wonder about the Guess Who cover and the resulting pickup truck commercial. But why was it that he got popular for his relationship with Lisa Bonet? I mean, really?
When I was in junior high, I think it was, a couple of foil-fashion hairdressers from San Francisco put out a very basic cover of "Cecelia" by Simon & Garfunkel. Now, if I say this was a very gay song, it's because it was literally a pop cover tune packed with intentional homosexual flair. The derogatory definition someone might employ, however, would best describe Kik Tracee's cover of Simon & Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson", a true hallowed classic of bad taste. But these were both major-label releases. Who the hell is responsible for this? What? The guy in Kik Tracee was a member of what band? Who cares? I thought they would have learned from Winger that youthful stand-ins to classic rock bands do not make good releases. At least not in this genre.
I suppose it is correct, all things considered, that I have improperly classified at least System of a Down. However, I still do indict them on the count of pandering to the pop culture in the sense of trying to write hit songs instead of merely writing good songs. Their musical depth may grow--I don't deny that possibility. And their lyrics may mature. But that remains to be seen. I'll give the same benefit to Puddle of Mudd while I search for a song that impresses me toward a more favorable opinion.
An analogy might be to say that System of a Down is something I might play while romancing a chick I met at the bar. But if I score, I'll probably be listening to Tool or Floater. Or, in another genre: I might play Cinderella while romancing a chick I met at a bar (in, oh, 1988 if I had been 21 then), but when we got back to my place--AC/DC. One seems apropos the superficial. One seems apropos the more important things.
I'm obviously just a little high right now.
But a friend just walked in, and, at my asking of his opinion, gives them a thumbs-up: "It's just metal, but they manage to rock."
It's a start. I'll give it a listen.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Notes:
° Andrew Wood: A couple of things worth noting. Andrew's brother, Brian, would eventually play in Hater (http://www.downundershoe.com/releases.html) with the aforementioned Soundgarden bassist (Ben Shepherd) and Monster Magnet guitarist (John McBain)--they were pretty good. Not anything to go racing to the top of the charts, but I'd rather hear "Down Undershoe" on the radio than most of what's out there. Secondly: PolyGram, the label which acquired Mother Love Bone, also acquired their pseudo-label Stardog Records; they used it to foist other bands on the public, such as Ugly Kid Joe.
With apologies to Lokee, for this is long overdue.
If you throw enough darts at a board, you're bound to hit a bullseye eventually. Ask any drunk at a local bar. Major-label record companies are a lot like this. Given that the packaging of the last Tool album (as I recall) was expensive cellophane at the objections of the record label, I would hope to establish a certain difference of perspective 'twixt the band and BMG, its parent label. Furthermore, it looks like BMG either founded or acquired, or else bought distribution rights from other labels.
Tool is a legitimate phenomenon. Their influences are apparent to some, but they do not seem to borrow overtly. Technically, they are trend-setters, and while I don't see them as having the same impact as a Nirvana or Pearl Jam, I do see them as being approximately as influential as Radiohead is turning out to be. And Tool's live shows ... The Melvins were the loudest band I'd ever heard. And then one day they opened for Tool. I didn't see a pop concert that night. Tool put on a full-blown heavy metal artistic tantrum. This is something that, having witnessed it, I cannot deny. And the videos? High art for the pop culture. I've heard some pretty inane babblings about the meaning of the videos, but I'm impressed at the fact that people have generally identified the core components of the artistic expression. It seems that Tool is very adept at communicating ideas through art. How can I argue?
Of Rage Against the Machine, a couple of things need to be put up front. First, I found most of that hyperactive ranting music annoying to the ear, and thus was never big on Rage. Secondly, I am somewhat of a leftist, and thus appreciate greatly the lyrical politic.
That said, something odd strikes me. With their 1992 Sony/Columbia debut, Rage seems to have been signed in the post-Primus rush. I cannot confrim that. I don't knock Rage on this count. Rather, I don't think the label was fully aware of what it was getting with the deal. Open Red sympathy does not usually resonate well in the popular culture. We do keep Rage around the house on vinyl & CD. I break out the vinyl occasionally. It's not horrible. It's just part of a movement that sonically didn't mesh with me.
Their popularity isn't necessarily hard to imagine. They are capable musicians, as evidenced by the scrapped sessions with Chris Cornell (formerly Soundgarden). We're all amazed: it sounds like an incredible album, but the reason it didn't pan out is obvious--it's not a Rage album. It sounds more like Cornell than it does Rage. I haven't yet matched the song titles yet, but presently I'm listening to "Track 6" as I received it. It sounds like a Soundgarden song. And as the review on the page I looked up to check Rage's label (http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=1790015979/pagename=/RP/CDN/FIND/album.html/artistid=RAGE+AGAINST+THE+MACHINE/itemid=318585) puts it: The band's keen political interest separates it from both its lighthearted contemporaries and the many issue-oriented bands that fail to convincingly mesh music with politics. I find it curious also that the high-profile hijinks designed to get attention were also different from many other popular bands: the attention was intended to go elsewhere than the band. I thought the convention riot was hilarious. The only reason people paid attention to Rage in the political aftermath is that popular leftists are always good for spitting on. But there is no doubt that their politics dragged the Chiapas conflict into the American limelight. That's a pretty decent accomplishment. As artists they've thus far fulfilled their commitments to art, and it seems they hope to continue to do so. I give them a hearty endorsement in the fact that I hope they manage to stay popular without sacrificing their politics or their musical integrity. Strangely (or perhaps not), that's why I respect the scrapping of the Cornell sessions.
Now as relates Puddle of Mudd and System of a Down: these bands still have a chance to convince me, for whatever that is worth. But I don't really see them as setting any musical or artistic trends. The songs a friend of mine constantly played for me were what I call "pretentiously deep", as if there was far too much effort into creating the effect of deep thought as compared to actual deep thinking. All in all, it's a mild accusation; my shelves are covered with that kind of stuff. However, within that heavy sound I prefer other bands that I think show considerably better talent and vision. System of a Down, for instance, once played shows with Floater. Having seen Floater in the days when they were accused of being Tool knockoffs (an unfortunate coincidence, I think) and having seen a show with no more than sixty people in the room, I'm still stunned by what they would do shortly afterward: transcend their utter heaviness, exploit their conceptual and melodic depth, and release the most affecting album I've ever heard, and a candidate for one of the best. (Angels in the Flesh and Devils in the Bone (http://www.floatermusic.com/discography/discography.html)) Having watched a band whose debut album achieved enough recognition to receive a "preliminary" Grammy nomination for Best Rock Album just get better for six and a half years, it just grates on my nerves when a pop band with shallow lyrics and less depth gets recognition just because they're willing to play ball and manufacture a commercial product instead of a piece of art that speaks for itself. (Floater once refused Capital Group for a recording contract because they were unwilling to chop up the album Glyph--produced by Drew Canulette, no less--and pull out the "slow" songs, write and record new "fast" songs and present a 60-minute heavy metal recording composed of badly-chopped "singles"; that's the story as I learned it from one of their effects producer after a show in Salem, Oregon several years ago.) System of a Down and Puddle of Mudd are the Gren and Silverchair of the Tool generation. (See? I told you Tool was a trend-setter.) I've found bands like System of a Down preferable radio chatter to other choices of the pop cultures of yore--Maxi Priest, Wreckx 'n' Effects, Silverchair, just to name a few. System, for instance, I will listen to. Mudvayne and Godsmack, I won't. Mudvayne just doesn't impress me--seen it all before, and better done by bands like Carnivore, King Diamond, and many of the PMRC's 1980s blacklist, and Godsmack could have at least waited until Staley died before butchering the AiC sound into so much rancid hamburger. And throw into that bubblegum bands like Blink 182, who I thankfully haven't heard much from recently, and Linkin Park, who sound good enough to not turn off (A) when I'm really really stoned and willing to listen to anything that distorts sound, and (B) when no member of that outfit is speaking, singing, or otherwise, and suddenly I've lost faith in the heavy rock subculture I used to know and love. (I have been heard to say once, stoned senseless, trapped in a Mitsubishi Eclipse with speakers blaring into my skull, that I would rather listen to New Kids on the Block than ... well, I forget if it was Blink or Linkin, but I think it was Blink. Seriously, the only reason New Kids occurred to me at that moment was because that's what the song sounded like.)
Part of it may be location. When you get to drink and dance with your local musical heroes because they're all at the same shows you are, I do admit a bizarre sense of the scene develops. I still remember seeing Kent 3 and Wellwater Conspiracy play the Sit 'n' Spin. I saw Mark Arm of Mudhoney in the audience, and at the end of the show he stood for a moment deep in thought. I made a joke to a friend that Mudhoney would be playing soon; when he asked why I thought so, I said, "Did you see Mark Arm?" Simply put, it looked like the man was contemplating a show. After all, Kent 3, a local punk band of the post-grunge ascendency got to headline above a Seattle superband featuring members of Soundgarden and (once upon a time) Monster Magnet. Why? Because the bands we get in this town are that good. I can understand how Motley Crüe and Poison could be thought of as good, quality music if one's local scene was clubbing in L.A. when those bands were in the clubs. They certainly were among the most dynamic bands in town, from what I'm told. But the L.A. glam scene never really raised any musical standards; it was a symptom of Elektra wanting the next Alice Cooper, but only looking at shock value. Don't get me wrong, Motley Crüe was good in their own right, but "On With the Show" ain't "Only Women Bleed", and "She Goes Down" most certainly isn't "Raped and Freezing". But come on, when Pearl Jam's current drummer, a former Soundgarden bassist, and an original member of Monster Magnet (see Spine of God (http://www.cdnow.com/cgi-bin/mserver/SID=1790015979/pagename=/RP/CDN/FIND/album.html/artistid=MONSTER+MAGNET/itemid=23566)) are opening for a local punk band ... well, it seems unusual. Understand, please, Seattle's music scene in the 1990's bore a family tree that was downright incestuous. At some point, with absolutely no manufactured pop-culture in town, you start wondering when the pop culture is going to get this good.
Last example: Pearl Jam. I could never have imagined on release day of Ten, that it would go this far. Strangely, I think the label knew exactly what it had. PolyGram had signed Mother Love Bone, who recorded Apple, and were set to open for Guns 'n' Roses in 1990 until their frontman died. From those ashes came a graceful, somehow quiet A&M release by Temple of the Dog, a tribute to the fallen Andrew Wood.° I think Epic had a pretty good idea of what they were getting when they signed the band Mookie Blaylock. I heard Temple of the Dog when the album came out; the public didn't get to it until after both Pearl Jam and Soundgarden were on MTV. However, Temple was on A&M, a major label. Epic knew very well what it was getting. They'd already heard it. This is, of course, more than we can say for Geffen, who allegedly signed Nirvana as a condition for signing Sonic Youth.
Good music does find its way into the pop culture. But what puts most albums on the charts is controversy. I know a lot of people who think Lenny Kravitz is good, and so do I on most days; he's a very fine musician, no doubt, but I wonder about the Guess Who cover and the resulting pickup truck commercial. But why was it that he got popular for his relationship with Lisa Bonet? I mean, really?
When I was in junior high, I think it was, a couple of foil-fashion hairdressers from San Francisco put out a very basic cover of "Cecelia" by Simon & Garfunkel. Now, if I say this was a very gay song, it's because it was literally a pop cover tune packed with intentional homosexual flair. The derogatory definition someone might employ, however, would best describe Kik Tracee's cover of Simon & Garfunkel's "Mrs. Robinson", a true hallowed classic of bad taste. But these were both major-label releases. Who the hell is responsible for this? What? The guy in Kik Tracee was a member of what band? Who cares? I thought they would have learned from Winger that youthful stand-ins to classic rock bands do not make good releases. At least not in this genre.
I suppose it is correct, all things considered, that I have improperly classified at least System of a Down. However, I still do indict them on the count of pandering to the pop culture in the sense of trying to write hit songs instead of merely writing good songs. Their musical depth may grow--I don't deny that possibility. And their lyrics may mature. But that remains to be seen. I'll give the same benefit to Puddle of Mudd while I search for a song that impresses me toward a more favorable opinion.
An analogy might be to say that System of a Down is something I might play while romancing a chick I met at the bar. But if I score, I'll probably be listening to Tool or Floater. Or, in another genre: I might play Cinderella while romancing a chick I met at a bar (in, oh, 1988 if I had been 21 then), but when we got back to my place--AC/DC. One seems apropos the superficial. One seems apropos the more important things.
I'm obviously just a little high right now.
But a friend just walked in, and, at my asking of his opinion, gives them a thumbs-up: "It's just metal, but they manage to rock."
It's a start. I'll give it a listen.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Notes:
° Andrew Wood: A couple of things worth noting. Andrew's brother, Brian, would eventually play in Hater (http://www.downundershoe.com/releases.html) with the aforementioned Soundgarden bassist (Ben Shepherd) and Monster Magnet guitarist (John McBain)--they were pretty good. Not anything to go racing to the top of the charts, but I'd rather hear "Down Undershoe" on the radio than most of what's out there. Secondly: PolyGram, the label which acquired Mother Love Bone, also acquired their pseudo-label Stardog Records; they used it to foist other bands on the public, such as Ugly Kid Joe.