Rock Music - let's be honest

[nomadologist]

new rock bands I like:

The Psychic Ills
Geneva Jacuzzi
The Bubonic Plague
Indian Jewelry
Excepter
Gang Gang Dance

 

[mms]

Yes, Battles are very good indeed, extremely kinetic and exciting live rock music built out of massively fluid deployment of live sampling of guitars/basses in a Steve Reich/Young Gods kind of manner...

they play all those bits live rather than looping em i think really - i like the fact that they are all reprobates from well known hard core and metal bands along with the son of an avant guarde jazzer, who does his own strange things. they're all old enough to be bored of genre based music and take chances.

agreed with all the bands i know of that nomadologist lists too. also parts and labor, zombi, mountain of one, metronomy, nice nice, lightning bolt. first nation etc..

 

[matt b]

Yes, Battles are very good indeed, extremely kinetic and exciting live rock music built out of massively fluid deployment of live sampling of guitars/basses in a Steve Reich/Young Gods kind of manner...

seconded.

also:

OM
many of the bands who have gigs listed here: http://www.copsandrobbers.net/ particularly bilge pump
thrones
fantomas
bands that my friend simon tells me about that have funny names

 

[ChineseArithmetic]

I've been exploring and massively enjoying Fugazi's later albums recently. If more current rock was like this I'd be genuinely interested. Given how many supposedly 'punk' or Gang of Four influenced groups there are around who are just piss poor, I'm surprised Fugazi weren't bigger. But sadly they're on 'indefinite hiatus' these days, so that leaves no rock bands for me to like. Actually, I might explore other current acts on the Dischord label.

 

[Immryr]

that's pretty much what jamie lidell does but on a much more sophisticated level building tracks out of his own voice with tracking and mixing

here absolutely insane

there are loads of things people can go with guitars bass and drums imo but it helps to have keyboards. electronics as well.
battles for instance absolutely superb, and any number of bands.

ugh. i hate newer jamie lidell stuff. hes like the jamiroquai of this century. his earlier stuff and that supercolider thing he did were really good though.

 

[mms]

ugh. i hate newer jamie lidell stuff. hes like the jamiroquai of this century. his earlier stuff and that supercolider thing he did were really good though.

hmm i'd disagree, he writes good weird songs with good weird production, but I'd prefer it it was a bit more like his live shows. that's for sure. jamoriquai is a bit below the belt as jamoriquai is just absolutely shit pastiche who barely changes the fusion tracks he nicks all his music from.

 

[noel emits]

So there's all kinds of 'rock' bands around doing all kinds of stuff. But how can they win really? Too trad and it's just not interesting or new, too out and it stops being definable as rock, or is just really marginal in it's appeal. I think the question is can a rock act create new situations and myths anymore? In that respect regardless of musical merit or novelty Klaxons might actually be on to something, or at least hint at a way forward. I definitely think there is a lot to be said for combining Woebot's two categories above. Lots of my favorite older groups had synth / electronics personnel and/or tinkering producers.

 

[nomadologist]

niche markets are all that will be left in the near future. i don't think that's a bad thing per se.

 

[swears]

ugh. i hate newer jamie lidell stuff. hes like the jamiroquai of this century. his earlier stuff and that supercolider thing he did were really good though.

Super_Collider are one of my favorite bands ever, (And severely underrated) but Liddell's solo stuff tends to be a bit too "tasteful", I don't think he's as bland as Jamiroqui, though.

 

[swears]

While I tend to agree I wonder sometimes if it's valid? It's equally possible that we've heard every conceivable combination of synth sounds by now also. And the nature of artistic creativity is that it's unpredictable, so it should be theoretically possible to do something interesting with guitars (and popularly, not just in a High Art Concept way e.g. stroking guitars with paintbrushes in a gallery or something) - they're all just tools to be ab/used.

People always bring this up as if it's just guitars vs synths. I would say just playing a load of analog synths like Fad Gadget or something is just as retro as a new-wave throwback guitar band. (Maybe you could do something a bit more "interesting" or original, maybe...)
What the traditional band line up is actually pitted against is the huge potential of software.
If you had the technical ability you could create the sound of your average guitar band (perhaps not the vocals...yet) with cubase and the right plug ins. I don't think there's any limit to what you can do with software now. But as woebot pointed out, the performance element does seem to be required to attract people's interest. Having grown up on DJs and having been to less than ten live gigs in my entire life, I don't see the appeal of a live performance at all.

 

[drilla]

d

that's pretty much what jamie lidell does but on a much more sophisticated level building tracks out of his own voice with tracking and mixing

here absolutely insane

This has a similar method but to me is much better, see what you think: http://www.vimeo.com/clip:134034

 

[tht]

So there's all kinds of 'rock' bands around doing all kinds of stuff. But how can they win really? Too trad and it's just not interesting or new, too out and it stops being definable as rock, or is just really marginal in it's appeal. I think the question is can a rock act create new situations and myths anymore?

that's it really

there is some 'avant' stuff that's interesting (lightning bolt, panda bear, xinlisupreme) and a few old people (rtx, wire, sun city girls, boredoms)

if you can envisage grime as part of a wider pop continuum, maybe it will be seen as the first genre to properly syncretise software music and a human frontend, something that can begin in at home and eventually be saleable

any forms coming about from now on are almost certainly going to be produced by kids with computers and if it involves someone singing or shouting then there is enough to work on in terms of image, this hasn't been a problem for the larger part of the world where hiphop and its derivatives outsell everything else

a lot of the ennui in this thread comes from being in england where the attachment to reheating the same shit every few years is so entrenched as a cultural birthright for every iteration of congenitally stupid people

 

[Blackdown]

a lot of the ennui in this thread comes from being in england where the attachment to reheating the same shit every few years is so entrenched as a cultural birthright for every iteration of congenitally stupid people...

... by the ROCK press. (OK indie too)

 

[swears]

that's it really

if you can envisage grime as part of a wider pop continuum, maybe it will be seen as the first genre to properly syncretise software muic and a human frontend, something that can begin in at home and eventually be saleable

any forms coming about from now on are almost certainly going to be produced by kids with computers and if it involves someone singing or shouting then there is enough to work on in terms of image, this hasn't been a problem for the larger part of world where hiphop and its derivatives outsell everything else

Let's hope, eh?

 

[noel emits]

What about all those bands in the post-rock / post-hardcore / art-rocker continuum? Many of them are busy exploring possibilities in terms of structure and harmony but most seem weirdly dedicated to this kind of reductionist attitude to instrumentation (even to the point of eschewing guitar effects pedals) and presentation. Is it just a blokey thing? Boring geezers trying to be 'interesting' and experimental but afraid of too much fun and hung up on notions of authenticity?

 

[zhao]

Hoahio - playful and fun all girl group, NOT annoying, full of ideas, sonically adventurous avant type shit mixed with occasional more traditional jams. just great.

OOIOO - previously mentioned...

Ruins - improvised metal. precision chaos. not turntable friendly (atleast in terms of beats and tempo)

Pluramon - post shoe-gaze digital, studio rock. latest album with Julie Cruise nice as were previous ones.

GangGang Dance - eastern tinged psych (hardly rock at all)

Dean Roberts - digi-goth? noise-gaze? don't know what to call it.

Rothko - 4 basses and nothing else. meditative riffs.

Ghost - previously mentioned
__________
(list will grow as I think of more) these are current rock-ISH bands that I thoroughly enjoy. key-participal: ISH. currently interesting, relevent, thriving sounds involving guitars drums bass are not "traditional" rock, whose possibilities, in my estimation, are exhausted; and which I do believe is dead.

the likes of Chrome, Can, MBV, Joy Division, etc, etc, were the best at what they did / pushed their sounds to the zenith, and impossible for any new comers to top.

bad comparison but kind of like Gamelan which is so perfect that it is virtually impossible to improve upon, the sounds championed by bands like the ones I mentioned have reached the highest points on the map back in the 70s/80s, and can't really be out done.

 

[noel emits]

As dance music gets more minimal, rock must get more maximal!

 

[Sick Boy]

Firstly, I'm feeling what dHarry said when he said if you are going to mention a list one bands, say a little bit about them. The whole point behind this thread is that many people have no idea who the fuck you are talking about.

I suppose going into this I figured that a lot of the bands mentioned (pretty much all of them except the Klaxons so far) would have some kind of avant-garde/high-art edge to them. This makes sense to me, and I never really doubted going into this thread that the more esoteric, artsy shit probably has a thriving scene.

However, being a DJ, and somewhat a utilitarian in my music tastes, I am particularly interested in common people music. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a trend in new underground rock music is to sound obnoxious or willfully obscure (a la Gang Gang Dance, Xiu Xiu, Animal Collective, whatever...). Even in indie rock it seems the whole idea of having anyone in your band who can actually do their job well (i.e. a GOOD guitarist, a GOOD drummer, a GOOD singer, etc.) has gone out the window. Indie rock and a lot of art-school bands have a really amateur feel to them, and I can't get down with the lack of professionalism because in many cases it seems like they are bad without justification. Just lazy. This seperates them from amateur music that I actually do really enjoy like earlier punk rock.

It feels like rock music bothers me right now the way that visual arts are in how it seems to have just lapsed into self-indulgence, which is strange because so many indie rockers are now shockingly extolling the values of Justin Timberlake and Nelly Furtado. Why is there seemingly no good rock bands in this vein of music?

I am a fan of hip-hop, grime and that kind of shit, so I am used to bands with very direct language. So I sort of like the whole "mention Tescos in your lyrics" thing, which is why out of all those new indie rock bands that sort of sound the same, I sympathize with the Arctic Monkeys. I'm sure there are fans of rock music out there who don't want to go to a concert and have their ears obliterated by the next White House-influenced, wall-of-noise, neo-no wave art schooler outfit.

 

[nomadologist]

personally, I think American indie is losing its cache for the most discriminating listeners because it's crossed-over to the top 40. there's no "underground" illusion to it anymore. franz ferdinand, for example. (i'm including them in american indie because they were so successful here)

i have no problem with accessibility and broad-based appeal, but the entire attitude that fuels indie rock is about "authenticity." well, seems as if it's no longer interesting to more discriminating listeners to hear whiny navel-gazing upper middle class white adolescent males sing about being rejected. like i said before somewhere else, everything is so middle class--no one has the balls to really while out and and make the "rockstar" image 3-dimensional. formally, i can see conceptual space where great rock could still be written and enjoyed. the problem is on the level of iconography and image: no one buys Alex Kapranos (i'm not going to bother looking up that spelling) as a rockstar except 15-year-olds because you know he's no Iggy Pop at home. there is still tons of good pop written with guitars, if by good pop you mean well-crafted hooky songs. there's just no deeper "undercurrent" that anyone believes in anymore.

this "indie" problem is something Hollywood is having a hard times coming to terms with, too--IFC/Sundance are now an accepted part of the major studio push every year, not some form of cultural resistance to the mainstream. so where is all of the cutting-edge, challenging stuff going to come from?

it can be done. and it will be for rock, when there's a major economic depression again (like there was when Nirvana and alternative rock happened) and people get depressed and self-destructive and live their myths again. i think the synth-dance-punk revivalism is a symptom of the early Reagan years throwbacking that came with the Clinton years tech-boom fueled economic glory years.

 

[nomadologist]

David Bowie seemed annoyingly high arty at the time, too.