I like "the Cave"

I was just talking to my Nashville friend about this trend. She's heavily involved in the music scene there and says that Americana is the new bandwagon that a lot of musicians want to jump onto. She doesn't see it lasting long. It's like when the movie O Brother Where Art Thou came out. The soundtrack was heeped with praise, won all kinds of awards, and was bought by everyone. I wonder how many people listened to it more than once. The trend is not a bad one, there could be and have been worse, but I don't see it lasting very long either. It also goes along with the bearman trend, a backlash to the metrosexual look. Hence the appeal to young girls who often want to chase the latest thing.

Quote
treaclefingers
I like "the Cave"

Ya, that one probably tops my list of their music.

Quote
crholmstrom
& they really need to get off of my lawn!

But it's not about being an 'old fart'..I love everything from Kendrick Lamar to Calvin Harris and the Alabama Shakes. As I said before, I love Laura Marling, something M&S could never be. She's the real deal. I smell contrivance with these guys. The sudden change in the clothing, image, with the banjo player saying loud and proud, 'F*** the banjo!'
And the fact that the lead singer is constantly forgetting half the lyrics to half the songs, the fact that they have a quasi-romantic song on the new album called Tomkins Square Park and admit they've never been there, and didn't realize its a rather grimy area of New York until it was pointed out to them but it must have sounded like a cool reference.....all speaks to a certain fuckery.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-06-19 18:24 by stupidguy2.

i just dont get todays music, and maybe i dont do myself any favours by not trying to discover new music like i used to years ago, but i sort of know whats good, whats great and i feel todays music is nothing compared to what was produced in the past, if im missing something in todays music i would like someone to tell me what it is. also cant really take a band seriously that calls itself mumford and sons.

todays music is crappy boybands who cant write a song or play an instrument, bimbo tarts who dont wear much clothes and do cover versions badly murdering good songs of the past, or acrual bands whos guitar rythms are all the same and have little personality.

the mid 1960,s to the mid 1980,s was the pinnacle of popular music with so many great songs of different genre,s from good to great artists and bands who at least tried to be different.

its all shit these days.

time record companies got thier heads out of thier arses.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
RollingFreak
You're not missing anything. Honestly, and I don't mean to just crap on new music, but they are no different than the long line of people from the last 15 years that get praised. Whether it be for hip hop or country or rock or pop, a certain artist will get a surge for like a 3 year period and then they're gone. Or not gone but certainly much less famous and not playing with people like Bob Dylan anymore.

Or you get people like Gaga, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Kanye West. You're not missing anything there either, but for some reason they continue to stay huge. There's really no rhyme or reason to the music industry these days and I don't think thats being cynical. If someone would like to explain to me how I'm wrong I'd welcome it, cause I truly can't explain why what is "big" today is big.

Thing is I like Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna etc.. for what they are. But they aren't being ushered onto stages with Emmylou Harris or Dylan or Springsteen. These older artist get all excited because someone plays acoustic instruments, but it has to mean something, doesn't it?

I don't think so, no. Because you know what, People like Gaga and Katy Perry DO get ushered onto stage by bigger older artists. Case in point, our Stones brought BOTH of them up on stage. I think the reason the acoustic guys get called up is because they are young and relevant, and they get called to play with legends and older artists to make those legends or older artists seem "relevant". The same reason the Stones invite people like Gaga and Katy Perry up. They don't like their music, but they are likely doing it for publicity, and in the case of the acoustic people, its most likely because someone (CBS for the Grammys, the CMA awards) insisted or set it up, not because the actual legend or older artist asked for it. Bob Dylan had no control whatsoever about who was getting brought up with him at the Grammys. The Grammys just thought Mumford was somewhat in Dylan's wheelhouse and they thought it would be good cross promotion and a way to get all demographics.

I don't think it has anything to do with "meaning something" but thats just me.

Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.

Yeah, I agree with you, I can't see what the fuss is about. Fairly mediocre and boring songs. I mean, it's great that they are actually a real band playing real instruments but I can confidently predict that none of their songs will stand the test of time or be remembered by anyone in 10 years time.

Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.

Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.

Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..

There's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.

They make nice music to fall asleep to. I was way into their first two albums, and I saw them at Osheaga music festival in Montreal a couple of years ago. They were really good. But I'm kind of over them now; I've moved on to other things musically. Their music is not great in the way that the greats of the 60s or 70s are, but it's good compared with the kind of shit that is coming out of the top 40 lately...

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.

Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..

There's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.

She's different because her songs have depth. And what's wrong with her productions? Poker Face was a fantastic, world wide smash. PR BS? Please. That's rock and roll. Little Richard, Mick Jagger when he was androgynous, David Bowie, they all used PR BS. Just because a woman uses it doesn't mean the same rules don't apply. Lady Gaga just did an album of duets with Tony Bennet. You think Katy Perry, or Taylor Swift could pull that off? I'm not saying I like all of Gaga's stuff, but she's more of an artist than those others mentioned, or even Madonna herself. Cheers.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
RollingFreak
You're not missing anything. Honestly, and I don't mean to just crap on new music, but they are no different than the long line of people from the last 15 years that get praised. Whether it be for hip hop or country or rock or pop, a certain artist will get a surge for like a 3 year period and then they're gone. Or not gone but certainly much less famous and not playing with people like Bob Dylan anymore.

Or you get people like Gaga, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, Kanye West. You're not missing anything there either, but for some reason they continue to stay huge. There's really no rhyme or reason to the music industry these days and I don't think thats being cynical. If someone would like to explain to me how I'm wrong I'd welcome it, cause I truly can't explain why what is "big" today is big.

Thing is I like Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna etc.. for what they are. But they aren't being ushered onto stages with Emmylou Harris or Dylan or Springsteen. These older artist get all excited because someone plays acoustic instruments, but it has to mean something, doesn't it?

I don't think so, no. Because you know what, People like Gaga and Katy Perry DO get ushered onto stage by bigger older artists. Case in point, our Stones brought BOTH of them up on stage. I think the reason the acoustic guys get called up is because they are young and relevant, and they get called to play with legends and older artists to make those legends or older artists seem "relevant". The same reason the Stones invite people like Gaga and Katy Perry up. They don't like their music, but they are likely doing it for publicity, and in the case of the acoustic people, its most likely because someone (CBS for the Grammys, the CMA awards) insisted or set it up, not because the actual legend or older artist asked for it. Bob Dylan had no control whatsoever about who was getting brought up with him at the Grammys. The Grammys just thought Mumford was somewhat in Dylan's wheelhouse and they thought it would be good cross promotion and a way to get all demographics.

I don't think it has anything to do with "meaning something" but thats just me.

Well, I for one applaud the Grammy's with the Dylan, Mumford, Avery Bros. set...it was fan freakin' tastic, amongst the best Grammy's performances (I think Mick was on the same show as well...unbelievable) I've ever seen.

They knocked it out of the park that night.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.

Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..

There's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.

She's different because her songs have depth. And what's wrong with her productions? Poker Face was a fantastic, world wide smash. PR BS? Please. That's rock and roll. Little Richard, Mick Jagger when he was androgynous, David Bowie, they all used PR BS. Just because a woman uses it doesn't mean the same rules don't apply. Lady Gaga just did an album of duets with Tony Bennet. You think Katy Perry, or Taylor Swift could pull that off? I'm not saying I like all of Gaga's stuff, but she's more of an artist than those others mentioned, or even Madonna herself. Cheers.

I completely disagree. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they couldn't. There's nothing that suggests something like Perry or Swift couldn't do everything Gaga is doing. They just aren't. I actually follow them more closely than you might think. Katy Perry's latest album had a lot of "spiritual" type of songs, which is something I'm not hearing many other places. And Swift is total country that also proved she can do pop with the best of them with her new album. Again, none of these artists I particularly like, but they've all proved they aren't one note, the same way Gaga isn't. To say that Gaga's songs have depth and someone like Taylor Swift's doesn't is to me, frankly, completely one sided. Many say Swift is the most honest songwriter out there nowadays.

What I'm basically getting at is I think people like Katy Perry and Taylor Swift have let the music do more of the talking. With Gaga, there's always some sort of spectacle. The same way Madonna had that. Gaga never truly lets the songs just speak for themselves, except in very few cases. She's always either singing it naked or she's having people throw up on her (you know, for art), while there are multiple examples of others just doing stark performances, and on award shows no less where its all about spectacle. I'm not saying Gaga doesn't have any talent. Obviously she does and she obviously has very wide tastes, to be into people like Springsteen and the Stones and KISS and still doing an album with Tony Bennett. But I don't see any reason the others couldn't do that (they just haven't) and I've seen a lot more of Gaga making a spectacle of herself for publicity sake than for musical/artistic decisions.

I get PR and I get Bowie and Jagger always played that up when they were younger. But the bottom line is the music also did the talking, and taking out the fact that I like their music and not hers, I've rarely seen Gaga just let that happen. Whereas I would argue Bowie and Jagger let that happen a number of times. I do personally think you're making her out to be more important than she actually is, when aside from the outrageous stunts, she's truly no different than any of the other pop stars out there today. And I don't know why Gaga people have so much trouble just admitting that.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
24FPS

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
24FPS
Don't include Lady Gaga with the talentless others. She's multi-faceted, can cross genres (successfully), and I'll bet she's around for many years.

Agree. As you said before about Zep and others...there is something there..

There's the same thing there that was there with Madonna. I actually don't hate Gaga, but I see no reason she's different than Katy Perry or Taylor Swift. Gaga relies on shock value, despite actually being a credible songwriter. Her songs are ruined by her production, which she clearly wants cause she releases them that way, even though they are good songs when she just performs them straight. She does the same PR BS that all the others do. Just because she's a little bit more outrageous doesn't make her different. On the complete other spectrum, Taylor Swift is an innocent kitten. But many would say she's everything you described Gaga as. So either you have to discount all of them, or they are all fair game. I see no difference in any of them. But as always, if I'm wrong (which I usually am) I would love to know why.

She's different because her songs have depth. And what's wrong with her productions? Poker Face was a fantastic, world wide smash. PR BS? Please. That's rock and roll. Little Richard, Mick Jagger when he was androgynous, David Bowie, they all used PR BS. Just because a woman uses it doesn't mean the same rules don't apply. Lady Gaga just did an album of duets with Tony Bennet. You think Katy Perry, or Taylor Swift could pull that off? I'm not saying I like all of Gaga's stuff, but she's more of an artist than those others mentioned, or even Madonna herself. Cheers.

I completely disagree. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they couldn't. There's nothing that suggests something like Perry or Swift couldn't do everything Gaga is doing. They just aren't. I actually follow them more closely than you might think. Katy Perry's latest album had a lot of "spiritual" type of songs, which is something I'm not hearing many other places. And Swift is total country that also proved she can do pop with the best of them with her new album. Again, none of these artists I particularly like, but they've all proved they aren't one note, the same way Gaga isn't. To say that Gaga's songs have depth and someone like Taylor Swift's doesn't is to me, frankly, completely one sided. Many say Swift is the most honest songwriter out there nowadays.

What I'm basically getting at is I think people like Katy Perry and Taylor Swift have let the music do more of the talking. With Gaga, there's always some sort of spectacle. The same way Madonna had that. Gaga never truly lets the songs just speak for themselves, except in very few cases. She's always either singing it naked or she's having people throw up on her (you know, for art), while there are multiple examples of others just doing stark performances, and on award shows no less where its all about spectacle. I'm not saying Gaga doesn't have any talent. Obviously she does and she obviously has very wide tastes, to be into people like Springsteen and the Stones and KISS and still doing an album with Tony Bennett. But I don't see any reason the others couldn't do that (they just haven't) and I've seen a lot more of Gaga making a spectacle of herself for publicity sake than for musical/artistic decisions.

I get PR and I get Bowie and Jagger always played that up when they were younger. But the bottom line is the music also did the talking, and taking out the fact that I like their music and not hers, I've rarely seen Gaga just let that happen. Whereas I would argue Bowie and Jagger let that happen a number of times. I do personally think you're making her out to be more important than she actually is, when aside from the outrageous stunts, she's truly no different than any of the other pop stars out there today. And I don't know why Gaga people have so much trouble just admitting that.

Your arguing for the artistic integrity of Katy Perry over Lady Gaga.

Step back for a second and give your head a massive shake.

I get that its silly, but I personally don't feel there's an honest reason why Lady Gaga has so much more artistic integrity than someone like Katy Perry. What, just cause she's extreme and takes risks means she's the premiere "artist" of the decade? Thats as much blind praise as the general public anoint her with just because they're shocked. When you look at the facts, she's truly not that different than her peers. And I see you point out Perry but completely ignore Swift. I suppose because she does have integrity but that hurts your argument so let's not bring it up?

Again, show me how she has more artistic integrity and I'll gladly be fair and see your point. But I've listened to this woman's interviews, I've watched her performances, I've listened to hear music. I don't for one second see how she's any different than the other pop stars of today. She's edgier and more outrageous (which to me doesn't equal integrity), and has on one occasion acted on one of her more atypical influences with Bennett. Otherwise, she does the same overblown stage show as everyone else, she has as many "co-writers" on her songs as everyone else, and she makes herself a spectacle just like every other female pop star these days. She hasn't advanced music or set trends in the way Madonna did, the same way none of today's pop stars have made great strides. I just struggle to see how she's any different, besides all the critics saying she is.

I thought this was about some crappy hipster 'Americana' posers, but okay, here's Lady Gaga doing something beyond what her contemporaries are capable of. (IMHO)

[youtu.be]

Quote
RollingFreak
I get that its silly, but I personally don't feel there's an honest reason why Lady Gaga has so much more artistic integrity than someone like Katy Perry. What, just cause she's extreme and takes risks means she's the premiere "artist" of the decade? Thats as much blind praise as the general public anoint her with just because they're shocked. When you look at the facts, she's truly not that different than her peers. And I see you point out Perry but completely ignore Swift. I suppose because she does have integrity but that hurts your argument so let's not bring it up?

Again, show me how she has more artistic integrity and I'll gladly be fair and see your point. But I've listened to this woman's interviews, I've watched her performances, I've listened to hear music. I don't for one second see how she's any different than the other pop stars of today. She's edgier and more outrageous (which to me doesn't equal integrity), and has on one occasion acted on one of her more atypical influences with Bennett. Otherwise, she does the same overblown stage show as everyone else, she has as many "co-writers" on her songs as everyone else, and she makes herself a spectacle just like every other female pop star these days. She hasn't advanced music or set trends in the way Madonna did, the same way none of today's pop stars have made great strides. I just struggle to see how she's any different, besides all the critics saying she is.

don't take my lack of effort in typing in an 'extra' name as anything more than I was too lazy. It was 'swifter' this way.

Quote
24FPS
I thought this was about some crappy hipster 'Americana' posers, but okay, here's Lady Gaga doing something beyond what her contemporaries are capable of. (IMHO)

[youtu.be]

If you read what I wrote, I said when she strips the songs back and just lets the music do the talking, they sound very good. This was what I meant. And both Perry and Swift perform regularly and acoustic during their stadium shows. Its no different.

Quote
treaclefingers
don't take my lack of effort in typing in an 'extra' name as anything more than I was too lazy. It was 'swifter' this way.

Fair enough. Many have not said what you did about Taylor Swift, so if you were referring to her I'm very surprised. I've never seen anyone say she doesn't have as much artistic integrity as Gaga.

Quote
latebloomer
I was just talking to my Nashville friend about this trend. She's heavily involved in the music scene there and says that Americana is the new bandwagon that a lot of musicians want to jump onto. She doesn't see it lasting long. It's like when the movie O Brother Where Art Thou came out. The soundtrack was heeped with praise, won all kinds of awards, and was bought by everyone. I wonder how many people listened to it more than once. The trend is not a bad one, there could be and have been worse, but I don't see it lasting very long either. It also goes along with the bearman trend, a backlash to the metrosexual look. Hence the appeal to young girls who often want to chase the latest thing.

Strange since Americana has been around for decades, hard for me to think of it as a "new bandwagon". By the wiki AMA definition below one could easily argue that the Stones records like BB, LIB and Exile were Americana. It sometimes seems it's more of a way marketing people are trying to put music into neat little boxes so they can package it and sell it to target markets. So much music these days is an amalgamation of different pure styles.

Americana, as defined by the Americana Music Association (AMA), is "contemporary music that incorporates elements of various American roots music styles, including country, roots-rock, folk, bluegrass, R&B and blues, resulting in a distinctive roots-oriented sound that lives in a world apart from the pure forms of the genres upon which it may draw. While acoustic instruments are often present and vital, Americana also often uses a full electric band."[2]

peace

I must admit I don't get the M&S bandwagon....

We in Canada have had to tolerate the Bare Naked Ladies sort of a 90s and 00s Canadian version of M&S....faux hispters writing unbelievably lame pop songs...

The, shall we say, Oasis of the younger generation...yawn.

OASIS did a great job

Supersonic and Listen Up are incredibly good RnR songs

Not an Oasis fan, but don't undersell them. There are very few bands, if any, that have come up with a song as recognizable as Wonderwall in the last 20 years.

your not missing anything,if you haven't heard the old 97s,than your missing something.

Quote
flacnvinyl
Mumford & Sons' first album hit a chord. Folksy, good lyrics, and songs that sound like they would fit well in a hole-in-the-wall pub in Scotland.

Yes, I enjoyed their first two albums very much. I do not expect new artists to re-invent music but if they play good songs with a convincing concept it's great for me. I saw them in concert at the Trianon Theater in Paris (as one of the 10 percent gey-haired daddies, btw) and it was excellent. A great performance in a small Theater, much like I wanted to see the Stones (which will never happen).

But then I lost interest, and I did not listen to the new album because it was said to be more Mainstream which means that their essential qualities got lost.

Quote
mrpaulincanada
I must admit I don't get the M&S bandwagon....

We in Canada have had to tolerate the Bare Naked Ladies sort of a 90s and 00s Canadian version of M&S....faux hispters writing unbelievably lame pop songs...

if I had a million dollars i'd buy up all their albums and store them in a secure facility so that no one would ever have to listen to them again.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
mrpaulincanada
I must admit I don't get the M&S bandwagon....

We in Canada have had to tolerate the Bare Naked Ladies sort of a 90s and 00s Canadian version of M&S....faux hispters writing unbelievably lame pop songs...

if I had a million dollars i'd buy up all their albums and store them in a secure facility so that no one would ever have to listen to them again.

Please don't put your cash in the hands of a rock n roll band. They'll throw it all away...

I have a friend who loves Mumford and Sons and The Lumineers. She hates it when I play Queens Of The Stone Age and Eagles Of Death Metal. Any QOTSA fans here?

Quote
JohnnyBGoode
I have a friend who loves Mumford and Sons and The Lumineers. She hates it when I play Queens Of The Stone Age and Eagles Of Death Metal. Any QOTSA fans here?

[youtu.be]