come and watch
my band in London tomorrow night.
- we have a shit-awful name
- possibly quite boring, sluggish, overlong songs .. although we're now playing much more condensed stuff live. (not yet documented online im afraid)
- rather overwrought vocals (my fault)
but live, there a whole load of Lidell-esque sampling, dubbed out fx and bits of sound manipulation, some mildly innovative approaches to guitar...like... well, delay pedals
We do have a good drummer, at least.
www.thesoundofbrenda.co.uk
--
ohgod, my first post here amongst the finest names in music deliberation ... and its a shameless plug of my not so good band.
ach well, ive been a dedicated loiterer.
--
on topic:
i can see why many would feel rock to be rather dried up.. the only innovation being in more abstract terrain.. of Liars et al..
the more exciting prospects, like TVOTR.. sound great on paper.. but they never, or rarely quite deliver on the song front.
theres got to be a way of harnessing newer technologies, with a dedication to ROCK dynamics (but not rockism), with a well written and more accessible SONG aspect to it??
I dont believe that guitars are dead.. they may be weighted with a silly amount of cultural history
but theyre can be such great sound sources for abstraction (a la fennesz etc)
and theyre fucking fun to hit.
and they DO extend the penis. FACT.
still, is this whole question of 'is rock dead?' is not just a journalistic concern?
are bands/projects like liars, subtle, deerhoof, and dalek.. (all of whom use rock dynamics) not 'rock' becasue they dont draw exclusively from that purist rock lineage?
if these sort of criteria are set up for what yr going to include as 'rock', then yr only going to end up with a load of ramones wannabes, which in turn you can criticize for being too retro! and so it goes...
is this not in truth a criticism of the rock/indie press, the channels of distribution etc etc..
and the problems of categorisation?
in short, does it matter?
buy the records you like. give up on this idea of a sustainable rock continuum, a canon..
(I admit, that wouldnt be much fun though.)
OR is it just that we dont hear much/any of this guitar-based innovation in the charts?
whereas we DO hear great, innovative pop/r n'b in the top ten
but then, as some have said, the part of the philosophy of rock music (that outsider stance kind of thing.. if not the teen sex energy aspect), if adhered to with integrity, may not have the same mass-marketability.?.. im probly talking nonsense here. (but the succesful 'outsider stance' rockers.. kurt.. etc.. well, he was pretty boy really. not an outsider in my book!)
also, on a purely sonic level, huge swathes of dissonant guitar nosie just doesnt go with yr franchise coffee/mall shopping experience (and it fucking shouldnt) quite like a slinky neptunes beat / reassuring sub bass line.
anyway. and i dont know if i feel that wholesome when things i love start getting rotation in topshop as hordes of teens buy their uniforms.. let it stay marginalised! (he says as another rock genius starves)
.that was sprawling mess.
apologies.
--
ps: nice to see a friend, Jamie Woon mentioned... he's a self confessed Jamie lidell and Reggie watts freak. tho he's definately more of a folk, soul boy than a 'man of rock'.