Great Noisey article: Chris Carrabba reviews the emo revival

[daseb]

Definitely a false Emo. Do not entry.


As I've said I think it's mad that people pick up on old stuff and it's new to them. It's when they don't put their own spin on it or seem to overwhelmingly miss the point of it that it kinda leaves me feeling like it's a bit empty.

[PeteeBee]

Awe man. My youth was a lie. Good thing it was really fun.

I hear a similar thing in the current local hardcore scene. Everyone is trying the bring in a little sabbath riffage into their basic structure of what a hardcore song is. Their are a couple bands that do it well and it feels unique or like they have really grown their own sound. Others it just feels like copy paste creativity. Insert verse. Insert riff. Chorus. Chug section. Riff. Verse. Chorus. Slam. Chorus. Pileup. Done

[D.o.S.]

The other problem with copy paste creativity (great phrase) now is that it is so much easier to do with the advent of the internet that the effort it once required to sound just like whatever band you want to pick is totally gone, because you can just youtube it. You don't even have to hunt down the albums in the flesh.

[PeteeBee]

That's actually something I do on a somewhat regular basis. My band mates are bothersomely late all the time. If practice is at 4 they'll show up at 530 or 6, but that's besides the point. I'm sitting at the practice room. I've already gone over my new material so it's fresh, played through tricky parts of the old stuff. Then I normally youtube some band I've been listening to and try to write something like theirs. We never play these intentionally copied songs as a band, but I see it as a decent way to practice when I'm not feeling super inspired.

[D.o.S.]

I think there's a pretty big difference between playing along to a record to practice and basing an entire band identity on sounding as much like another band as possible?

[jrmy]

I think there's a pretty big difference between playing along to a record to practice and basing an entire band identity on sounding as much like another band as possible?

True, for certain. But this gets us into certain tricky (and to my mind kinda interesting) notions of defining genre boundaries. To me, these boundaries can be fuzzy and kinda Venn-diagram-ish, but it's an interesting question: if a band falls so neatly inside the boundaries of a genre does it in fact lose its validity as a "creative" or valued construct?

[D.o.S.]

edit jesus that image size.

[jrmy]

Hey Mr DJ...

[edit: is that even the lyric? I can't remember...]

[D.o.S.]

And, obviously, this is an individual sticking point that I know I've been on a different end of the spectrum than others here on this before, but I absolutely do not see the point of being in a band if you're not doing something that is different enough to be worth it -- the whole point of making music (IMO) is to satisfy tastes that aren't being met by other bands/vehicles, right? But if you're in a band like Jet, I mean, you could be in an AC/DC or Aerosmith cover band and be contributing exactly the same ideas to the form. I have the same beef with all those stoner rock bands that try to sound 'exactly' like Sleep or all those "blues" bands that sound just like the White Stripes or all those "indie" bands that try to sound just the Shins or whatever once those bands hit the right level of cultural cache, which is typically after the scene that birthed those bands is more or less dying from an original and creative point of view.

[jrmy]

I suspect that while we don't agree on every band in each's collection, you and I agree on the basic premise of your argument, DoSsy. The meat of Thee Big Question, as I see it is:

...but I absolutely do not see the point of being in a band if you're not doing something that is different enough to be worth it...

So what constitutes "different enough to be worth it?" (and maybe this is on a sliding scale - context-dependent and whatnot)

AND FURTHER PLUS TOO: extra credit if you address the issue of cover songs.

[D.o.S.]

I mean it's pretty easy, insofar as it's a set of binary-answer questions: What do I want to hear? Where can I get to the sound that's in my head? Can I get it from a band that I know about? Can I get it from somewhere else?

In practice, it's a much rougher question to answer, obviously, but measuring your own output against what you think has merit as a listener is a necessary task. And, of course, this is different from wanting to be in a band so you can drink bears and bash out jams with breaux and take it not-so-seriously. I've done that before, I think everyone should do that, but I don't think that's really the same as wanting to actually create music that you stand behind as a piece of art or whatever.

[jrmy]

That is a totally solid answer, and I'm pretty much on board with it.

And then there's the question related to this part:

I don't think that's really the same as wanting to actually create music that you stand behind as a piece of art or whatever.

Which is to say: does all music need to share standards of "high art" (which is what I interpret when you say "piece of art") to be quality? OR could one read music as an act of cultural/subcultural participation? Because if it's more participatory than "artistic," I think there may be different requirements / validation points.

The answer can, of course, be: both, sometimes, or never (all at once).

[D.o.S.]

Right, exactly. And there's some masterbatory merit to the idea that, say, Gang Green or Skrewdriver or the Shaggs were participating at that plain without knowing it -- akin to Outsider art phenomenon -- but it's pretty clear there's definitely various other factors at play. I'm not going to rip on Miley or Taylor Swift for writing pop songs, 'cause that's the level they're operating at. And at that degree you're essentially reduced to "I like it/I don't like it," but I'll totally maintain that if you want me to take your music 'seriously'


Then you've got to answer to the deeper bits of it. That's why making fun of Trent Reznor for his lyrics is more fun than making fun of Swifty, for example -- because even though they're both deadly serious about their craft only one of them is making 'serious' music.

And, of course, this entire discussion is all contingent on having all participants operating on a common canon of music, typically Western Pop forms, which is a ridiculously shortsighted way to look at it overall but you've got to have some kind of central concept otherwise none of it makes sense.

[John Matrix]

This thread is like Livejournal circa 2002.

Dashboard is/was garbage. My first Carrabba experience was seeing him open up an extremely crowded show/sweat ceremony. Behind me was a large sweaty crying man and in front of me was a girl whose long hair kept sticking to my sweaty skin as she flung it around. When he started singing "you hair is everywhere" right that moment I almost died.

[jrmy]

And, of course, this entire discussion is all contingent on having all participants operating on a common canon of music, typically Western Pop forms, which is a ridiculously shortsighted way to look at it overall but you've got to have some kind of central concept otherwise none of it makes sense.

Fair enough, and that disclaimer at the end is key.

I kept hoping that I could interject how Motörhead's cover(s) of Louie Louie is the Most Perfect Cover ever, since Lemmy's very existence ties all of rock as a genre together IN REAL TIME, and that choice/treatment of song exemplifies it, but don't think I can maintain any level of intellectual coherence (the coffee's wearing off).

(Oh, but wait, I guess I did just interject that)

(And sometime I wanna have a Serious Conversation about cover bands and tribute bands somewhere with somebody... but now probably ain't the time)