Bollocks. The lot of you. I'm talking shit. For fuck's sake, pick me up on it. Cunts.

I hate it when people talk music theory. Fuck off.

But at least you're talking shit on the idea of 'ground-breaking' music, at least to the extent of rock music, so that's nice.

So, nothing's groundbreaking?

End of thread?

...I contend that, in all reality, with the amount of technology, instruments, infinite amount of combinations of notes/riffs/melodies/structure, etc. that it should technically be impossible for any two bands to sound that much alike unless they are purpoisely trying to sound like someone else, or they can't escape their influences. But eh.

When I listen to or produce my own music, the ever-unfolding struggle of qualitative progression (or whatever) is the last thing on my mind. And the token influences of film directors, visual artists, and authors fail to repair the collapsed bridge between that conception of music and the rest of life.

Ah fuck it.

*plays 3 power chords, goes OH WHOA WHOA, gets a 10.0 from pitchfork and a million dollars*

peace

I call it nahvant-garde.

I think music should just get more ridiculous.

Like a whole genre of amplified gardening ; contact mics on the leaves and tools and shit, call it avant gardening.

A whole genre of people washing dishes and making food, "experimental electro culinary art rock". Beating on plates and shit with forks.

The possibilities never end.

Yeah, I'm all for that, just as long as we not reduce whatever quality such musical freedom might have to a grand, impersonal narrative.

The thing is, though, just the idea of doing those things will get people "liking" it, regardless of the quality.

I watched Art School Confidential last night, and while it was sort of a mess (albeit a charming one) and this point is really obvious, it still is good to bring up... it doesn't matter if it's "good", it matters if it's "interesting", because anyone can convince anyone else that something is "good" if it has enough going for it.

For example, I may not like the sound of a band who makes music with nothing but bicycles but I'll certainly remember them because that's interesting. On the other hand, I may not remember a pop punk band who sounds like all the rest, even if they're serviceable, because there's already enough serviceable bands.

I think the best bands tote the line between tried and true music conventions, but still not being strictly musical at all times. There's no such thing as a "wrong" note.

Walked in a gypsy's tent with a food stamp,
And walked out with a magical lamp, yeah,
I met Milenko, he gave me three wishes,
That night, I fucked three fat bitches!

Can't get the fuck wit' it? Forget it,
I'll rip ya face off, and wipe my ass wit' it!
When the genie says "on with the show...",
It's hokus pokus, jokers, Great Milenko!

Even in terms of Rock, an album like Loveless is far less innovative than I think it's generally credited with. What that album marks is a sense of opening up parameters within an already myopic 'back to basics' Punk idea of what Rock is: (simple chord structures, standard drum patterns, etc) but certainly can't compare, in terms of innovation with the plethora of albums released in the late 60s-early 70s by bands such as Soft Machine or Yes (and obviously Beefheart) all of whom strike me as having a for more expansive attitude towards what Rock could be. I'd certainly say that, compared with those, Loveless closes Rock down far more than it opens it up. I'd even go so far as to say that, in terms of the Valentine's peers, an album like The Butthole Surfers Locust Abortion Technician was infinitely more innovative than Loveless - which I still can't see as anything more than a decent welding together of Dinosaur Jr riffs with Cocteau Twins textures and Beach Boys harmonies. Fortunately, innovation is one of the factors furthest from my mind when I listen to Rock.

Racist.

that too

With every year, Loveless seems more and more like such a boring record. I've never really liked it very much, but I listened to it last year and had to turn it off halfway through. The songs are uncompelling repetitions, the drum machine sounds like tinny shit, most of the songs are built around sometimes compelling distorted walls and simple repetetive melodies. It wouldn't be such a bad record if they hadn't already made Isn't Anything, which is such an energetic blast of awesome, creative rock, which has much better a) riffs b) melodies and even c) noises! I just can't stand to listen to Loveless, it goes on forever; some of the songs sound like straight-up boring grunge songs, albeit with a bit more distortion. How much did that record cost to make? 3 million? I think Lovelss is an important record, but it's one I'll never fully understand the appeal of, especially from a band who had already made so many good songs before that particular album.

I still wish I'd seen 'em live though, I bet they were great. Anyway...

I prefer ''Isn't Anything'' because they do more interesting things with drums. On a song like ''Soft As Snow (But Warm Inside), for instance, I like it how the syncopation of the drumming seems to dictate the unfolding of the melody more than the other way round. That is something that I don't hear much in many bands that work in a melodic rock format.

I've always thought Loveless would've made a great EP. There's maybe three or four truly outstanding tracks on it but the rest just sort of pass me by.

(Good point about Soft as Snow)

Exactly, the drumming on Isn't Anything rules. But again, Loveless is all drum machine except for like one song. And it's possibly the tinniest, worst programming drum machine ever. Really, in general, the album sounds like shit. $3,000,000?!

In what way are Drunkdriver pushing things forward?

Drunkdriver/Mattin type stuff

Yeah, Mattin's interesting but I've never really seen anything particularly forward looking when it came to Drunkdriver. If you're talking about some kind of collaboration between the two though, then fair enough. I've not heard it so I can't comment.