Melody Maker's review of Kula Shaker's "K"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Does anyone know if this quite funny slagging of one of the dreariest, shittiest arse-ends of Britpop bands is available anywhere on the web? I've looked but have had no joy as yet.

And please excuse my poor grammar. I have a feeling I might have spelt something wrong too.

Croooooow, Sunday, 5 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I believe I may have somewhere...inaccessible. Meaning buried somewhere in my room.

DG, Sunday, 5 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Well, here goes: a time capsule. Melody Maker, w/e 14th September 1996 (I initially wrote "1966": uncanny!) written by the greatest mass slaughterer Britpop ever knew, Neil Kulkarni. Originally asterixed expletives here in their true form.

--

I've just been informed by that porridge-faced wanker, Simon Mayo, that Kula Shaker are "the next Oasis". Of course, the obvious questions don't even get asked. Dissent is useless. Oasis are so big, such a huge commercial fact, they've created their own gravitational pull that sucks everyone below 30 along with them. They're as unavoidable as Coca-Cola or bad government, they're the indie Royal Family, a deadly virus to which there is only one cure: REMEMBER THE MUSIC'S CRAP. What Oasis have done is frighten everyone into a sudden fear of dissing "The Kids". To question The Kids is to miss the point, to be snobby, up yer own arse, a killjoy, a misery; Oasis have hardened The Kids consensus into a towering monolith that everyone must work around, accept, try and understand, try and JOIN. They can't all be wrong so the problem is you, right?

Well, fuck the kids. The kids will put this album at Number One. The kids are wrong. The kids are stupid. And, most importantly, "The Kids" DON'T FUCKING EXIST; the fallacy of consensus is created to pull as many tenners as possible into the slipstream, carried along by momentum and NOTHING ELSE. And this month's high- push-product is Kula Shaker and, Christ all mucking fighty, they're the worst of the lot.

There's enough woolly-minded idiocy and crass contrivance in this one record to consign the whole indie-pop scene into the abyss. But at least they're (open yer hymn books) Real Songs Played On Real Instruments. It's not even as if this could've been made in the last 30 years: Kula Shaker are so scared of '96 (is it a white thing? I dunno) and want SO BADLY to be dead and reborn in 1972 it's fucking ALARMING. Crucially, retro-accusations are less important than pointing out how deadly dull the bulk of this LP is, in a way that only true scumcunt hippies can be: "K" makes you feel genuinely ill, queasy, too much cheesecake too soon. It shits itself in fear of the future (1973) and stinks of living death.

In order, then: Hendrix in hell forced to tutor a disinterred Northside ("Hey Dude"); Cream at their most hideous ("Knight Of The Town"); Zep at their folksy worst ("Temple of the Everlasting Light" - I'm not making these up); fucking barbershop raga that's beneath contempt ("Govinda"); a repellent Madchester autopsy on Steve Marriott ("Smart Dogs"); a three-song burst of acoustic beardiness ("Magic Theatre", "Into The Deep", "Sleeping Jiva"); the two worst singles of '96 ("Tattva", "Grateful When You're Dead"); what you hope is gonna be an old-skool acid track but turns out to be more of the same ("303") and a closing fade-out ("Hollow Man") so stomach- churningly repugnant you feel like strapping suicide bombs to your body and marching straight over to Jo Whiley's house.

The trouble is it isn't that easy. Turn on MTV, open the NME, turn on the radio, walk into a record shop, and you'll be told that this is the way it is, this is what being you is, that this is a good thing, that we all feel the same way. Fuck that. This isn't the way things are or the way they have to be - this is living in FEAR of being young, this is a bad thing, and we here all AIN'T happy as can be, all good friends and jolly good company.

Don't be a sucker to this lame game. Time to tighten up and party.

--

Sums up why I was so depressed in 1996, I suppose ...

Robin Carmody, Monday, 6 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Kulkarni usually (well, used to, I don't know what he's doing now the Melody Maker's dead) gets on my nerves, but in this case I agree with everything he said. I'm happy to say that KulaShaker never graced my stereo - I thought they were bollocks. Shame on any and everyone who bought anything by them ever.

DG, Monday, 6 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Kulkarni still writes in DJ, Rock Sound and Metal Hammer.

DJ Martian, Monday, 6 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Sorry to tread on the thread, but this was thee finest Britpop garotting I ever read (thanks google archive, done minimal editing but sorry spelling fetishists for typos missed).

----

Melody Maker (21 Oct 95)

Digbeth Institute, Birmingham

INDIE is in Birmingham. Indie goes down a rapturous storm. Indie makes everyone happy tonight. Indie is lovely. Indie is the fleetfooted reduced to leadboot toetap. Indie is every single embarrassing moment of your life returned to like eternal dog's vomit. Indie's emotional limit is the delineation of when you feel a bit shit. Indie succeeds in this. Indie is tight T-shirts and rhythm sections. Indie is everyone wanting to look like one of the Beastie Boys even though the Beastie Boys have stopped doing this.

Indie doesn't see any point in voting because everything stays the same and comfy. Indie reaps the benefits of democracy and is unwilling to try and preserve it. Indie is communal contentment over mass ecstacy. Indie is an overheard conversation that makes you want to stab in the halfdark.

Indie is four people getting together wanting to create something sublime and immortal having had their lives swallowed by pop and needing to do the same, surveying the infinite possibilities and deciding three guitars some drums and some good songs will just about do. Indie is the scornful look from people your brain could eclipse and burn a million times over. Indie is every single transcendent spirit of humanity withered and died to the desire to succeed.

Indie is musical bigotry, political apathy, casual racism. Indie is a popularity contest that hates shallowness. Indie is revenge. Indie is the class weirdo with their own thrown in the sixth form centre. Indie is the dual luxury of the glamour of alienation coupled with party invitations. Indie is sauce over sex, ignorance over intuition, Gene over Gravediggaz, Powder over Pram and if you think that's petty you weren't here tonight, this was petty-lite. Indie is utterly wonderful.

Sleeper are great and I love them as much as you do. WILL THAT DO ARE YOU HAPPY NOW IT'S DOWN IN B&W JUST REREAD THIS SENTENCE FOREVER JUST FOR CHRISSAKES DON'T TALK TO ME. Indie is the only world in which Wener's cretinous Tory! Tory! Tory! blathering would not only be tolerated but applauded for their "bravery". Indie is the only type of pop that hasn't superseded poetry. Indie is happy. Indie is harmless. Indie is in love. Indie is moving with a bounce and a skip tonight and is proof that nothing is more revolting that the sight of the inheritors of the earth enjoying themselves. Indie has won. Indie will always win. Indie is where your assumption of universal complexity crumbles into the stark realisation that some people really are complete cunts. Indie is dead and buried. Indie is alive and well. The crowd roared.

Carla S, Monday, 6 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Ah yes I remember that Kula Shaker review now: classic. Damn, I miss that guy (of course I'm not going to pick up Metal Hammer after what 12 years ;).

Omar, Tuesday, 7 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Kulkarni occasionally writes for bleedmusic.com as well. here's an overview of his stuff: http://www.bleedmusic.com/bleedmusic/contributors/default.asp?id=27 sadly the monthly column he started has only seen one episode so far, 3 months ago...

Joris Gillet, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

11 months pass...
this band is pretty good. the cd K sounds like oasis. it's too bad this band broke up in 1999. only after two cd's. well check out this band NOW!!!!

John Doe Jr., Thursday, 11 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Kulkarni does an absolutely GENIUS metal column for Careless Talk now.

And sure, Kula Shaker were no worse than Stereo-fucking-Phonics (I saw both bands very early on, sadly). But as you probably guessed, that's no praise...

Jerry, Thursday, 11 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

I met a girl at university last year. Nice girl. Quasi-indie, bangles, kooky personality, etc etc. Anyway, we got talking one day, and both found we were music obsessives. So we basically got into the "I play you one of my favourite tracks, you play me one of yours". I played some Blackalicious, she played some Breeders, I played Violent Femmes, she played Utseri Yatsura, I played Mo*Ho*Bish*O*Pi, she played... some god awful acoustic track from Kula Shaker's second album. I've never fell out of love with some quicker.

Dom Passantino, Thursday, 11 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Kula Shaker are so scared of '96 (is it a white thing? I dunno) and want SO BADLY to be dead and reborn in 1972 it's fucking ALARMING

But Kula Shaker probably were born in 1972

jamesmichaelward, Thursday, 11 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

someone emailed me today asking "are kula shaker a grunge band?"

Robin Carmody, Thursday, 11 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

Oh shit. I just remembered I really really liked "Tattva" when it was making the rounds on "alternative" stations over here. ARGH.

Nate Patrin, Thursday, 11 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

I think I'm in LOVE with those two reviews!

Michael Daddino, Thursday, 11 July 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink

5 years pass...

back! back! back!

http://arts.independent.co.uk/music/features/article2991258.ece

those kulkarni reviews up there are fucking godhead.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 24 September 2007 09:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

He's still only 34? Fuck me.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 09:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

kulkarni's indie gig review is one of the most pissed-off pieces of music-writing i've ever seen, and although it's largely successful, i'd rather see his fire directed at the current crop of View Monkey Enemies, or Just Kate Allens.

Just got offed, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

well yeah, but um the melody maker folded, the nme is shit, and the mainstream media seem to be more keen on employing each other's nephews and nieces (etc.), and they'd never throw that kind of heat down on a hyped act. maybe some bullshit website or everett true vanity project would print it, but that's not the same thing.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

kulkarni's indie gig review is one of the most pissed-off pieces of music-writing i've ever seen, and although it's largely successful, i'd rather see his fire directed at the current crop of View Monkey Enemies, or Just Kate Allens.

http://www.drownedinsound.com/user/view/46684

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

only one thing to do: bring it down from within. go undercover y/n

(it would take a monumental effort not to be sacked within a week for slating a band they're meant to promote)

dom, you've made a good start, but SFG are small fry. let's raise the sights, shall we?

Just got offed, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

i am probably talking shit re they don't do that any more -- it's just those two reviews, especially the 1995 one, i can *still* remember, so they matter to me a great deal.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Kulkinari is the only writer from the mid 90s NME/MM axis that I would still bother going back and reading, _but_ his musical taste was dreadful and Sleeper were actually better than any band he used to plug of his own accord (lol monster magnet lol).

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

it's A-OK to slag off James Blunt and Athlete in the modern music presses, but if you DARE touch our new young Sheffield darlings....

to blanket-murk indie like that probably doesn't take into account the fact that there may have been some good songs, and hey, i even LIKE 'hollow man' (last track on K) if not the rest of the album. i guess you need a measure of absolutism to make people sit up and notice (not to mention strengthen your rhetorical thrust).

Just got offed, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Kulkinari is the only writer from the mid 90s NME/MM axis that I would still bother going back and reading, _but_ his musical taste was dreadful and Sleeper were actually better than any band he used to plug of his own accord (lol monster magnet lol).

-- Dom Passantino, Monday, September 24, 2007 11:23 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

think he liked wu-tang clan. iirc the wu came to london c. 96-7 and MM put them on the cover. kulkarni did the story. i don't think he really got to interview them though. it was kind of confusing...

taylor parkes is worth going back for. and johnny cigarettes invented lol britpop zing culture, no?

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

I thought Neil had (still has I'm sure) great taste, at least in its range which was quite rare in the more visible writers of the time. He was pretty obviously a product of John Peel so to speak.

Didn't realise that was your review Dom, my friend actually emailed it to me to say how good it was (I don't read DiS much)

DJ Mencap, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

NK was the first indie press writer to go to bat for R&B music as well, wasn't he? Or at least R&B that wasn't Janet Jackson.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

him and steven wells, probably.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

actually simon price, big booster of 'crazysexycool' iirc.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

This reviewer is so ageist he should never have been allowed to be one.

The 90s was badly in need of retro music. Hip-hop and house/electronica was about to destroy music, and Britpop was needed to re-estalish the tune ass all that mattered again.

Kula Shaker may not be particularly good but they should not be critized for being retro and writing proper tunes, because that's just a positive thing.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

the tune ass

Just got offed, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

I heard Geir Hongro wants to kill all black people. Confirm/deny?

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

you've made a good start, but SFG are small fry

Scouting for Girls have the number 12 album this week unfortunately.

Dom, Monster Magnet are great!

Raw Patrick, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

I used to go to school with a girl who had a... that guy from Monster Magnet (Dave something) poster on all of her workbooks and folders. She was about 6'3". They sucked.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 10:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

Covering ALL yr folders in MM is going too far I admit. You have to leave some to cover in Kyuss posters.

Raw Patrick, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's a satanic drug thing, you wouldn't understand

xpost

DJ Mencap, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

I heard Geir Hongro wants to kill all black people. Confirm/deny?

This is not about skin colour. Black people should also write proper tunes, and when they do they do it just as great as white people.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

"And that's the end of that chapter"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Kula Shaker weren't that bad in retrospect. Oasis were actually worse than Kula Shaker, I think (worse tunes, stupider lyrics - some achievement! - more derivative, dreary plodding feel) Athlete are far worse than Kula Shaker, Scouting for Girls are are worse than Kula Shaker by a distance as great as the distance between the 2 farthest points in the galaxy. I suspect most 2nd division britpop and nearly all lammo music is not only worse than Kula Shaker, but actually much worse. (this is not saying much I know)

Pashmina, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

<i>Kulkinari is the only writer from the mid 90s NME/MM axis that I would still bother going back and reading, _but_ his musical taste was dreadful and Sleeper were actually better than any band he used to plug of his own accord (lol monster magnet lol).</i>

i have just discovered that jw locked the 'RONG' thread on nb, so let me just say RONG, and that monster magnet>>>>>>sleeper, and that kulkarni is deathlessly genius. his musical taste was fucking dead sharp, and i own many fine albums thans to his advice.

stevie, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

Man, if ONLY we still had an ILXor who was capable of starting Sleeper vs American rock band threads....

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

Kula Shaker should be judged by the only criteria that matters, their melodies, which is were they fall short of - among others - Oasis by ripping off old Stone Roses songs and calling them their own.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

ripping off old Stone Roses songs

How dare they steal those original Roses tunes.

onimo, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

"...fashion journalist Alexis Petridis in The Guardian..."

Ha ha ha 10/10 Dom.

Oasis entire career has been based on lifting other bands' songs, Geir!

Pashmina, Monday, 24 September 2007 11:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oasis are lifting riffs, Stone Roses are lifting actual melodic lines. Important difference. "Into The Blue" is an entire lift of "Bye Bye Badmen". Oasis were only influenced by, say, the piano theme from "Imagine" without ever copying it note for note.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Lots of hip-hop tunes are based upon lifting riffs or tunes from older tunes note for note though. Which is one of the reasons why hip-hop is inferior.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely a great tune stays a great tune? In fact, copying an extant magical melidy is the best thing to do.

Raw Patrick, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

melody, obv.

Raw Patrick, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely a great tune stays a great tune?

But when it is composed it is composed and it doesn't need to be recomposed.

It's better to compose a new tune in the exact same style, and chances are it may be a great tune too.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 12:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Geir is on his hobby horse here and shouldn't be encouraged (I kinda thought he'd grown past some of these ideas but I guess getting misty-eyed for britpop has reawakened the zealot in him), but I can't help myself: Geir between the sort of "theft? tribute!" melodic cribbing that Oasis does and sampling, I know the latter seems more creative to me. Oasis picks your pocket and tries to look innocent; hip hop folds your dollar a half-dozen times and hands in back to you in a shape you wouldn't have guessed at. Lifting a riff honestly and recontextualizing it = writing; aping a style or two as Oasis did = pastiche.

J0hn D., Monday, 24 September 2007 12:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

Geirhog Day

Dom Passantino, Monday, 24 September 2007 19:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

I like how Neil is getting it in the neck for dissing "a bunch of white guys with guitars making old-fashioned tuneful music influenced by 60s and 70s music" and also for liking Monster Magnet

DJ Mencap, Monday, 24 September 2007 19:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

no way, geir: half the fun of music reviewing is watching someone tear chunks out of an album they were always going to hate. and half the fun of writing reviews is finding new ways to hone yr invective. in fact: i'd argue that people should only review things they don't think they'll like. (well, okay: i wouldn't really. but i might in this instance.)

also, as i always like to point out at times like this: following the legendary 0/10 review of "hippopotamomus" in the NME, i rushed out to buy it.

grimly fiendish, Monday, 24 September 2007 19:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

The point about reading a review is finding out "Is it likely that I will like this album or not?". If the album is in a genre you don't like, then you skip the review and don't read it at all. And then, if the album is in a genre you like, then you expect the reviewer to like the same genre, and tell you whether this is a good album judging from that genre's set of quality criteria.

That is: Kula Shaker should have been judged by their tunes and their musicianship, not by their "originality", as none of their fans were looking for "original" or "groundbreaking" music anyway.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 19:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

b-b-but ... if i had cloth ears and liked that kinda stuff, i'd still know from NK's review that i was just gonna love the patronising retro stylings of mid-90s kula shaker. just as i knew i'd love that momus album (and did).

that's why reviews are bylined: it's one person's view, not a publication's, and over time readers might or might not come to identify with -- or maybe loathe! -- certain writers.

also: i read reviews of all genres. that's one of the ways i started, er, listening to a lot of different music -- stuff i thought i'd hate. hellfire, it was reading a piece in (cough) "the word" that made me think, right, i'm going to give fuckin' dylan a try (qv thread somewhere else on new answers right now). seriously, dude, you should try it :/

grimly fiendish, Monday, 24 September 2007 20:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

et bloody cetera ad infinitum.

Mark G, Monday, 24 September 2007 21:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

b-b-but ... if i had cloth ears and liked that kinda stuff, i'd still know from NK's review that i was just gonna love the patronising retro stylings of mid-90s kula shaker.

Then you wouldn't know if they were good or bad, as that reviewer obviously would have slaughtered whoever tried the same thing, regardless of the quality of the songs.

For instance: Oasis and Stereophonics are doing virtually the same thing. But Oasis have written a bunch of truly magnificent melodies, while Stereophonics' melodies are mostly just crap, performed by a crap singer with an extremely annoying voice. That distinction will disappear in a review written by a reviewer who hates even the good stuff within that genre.

Geir Hongro, Monday, 24 September 2007 21:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Does that mean that you can pretty much STFU about any and all music that isn't white-boy-melodies-r-us?

onimo, Monday, 24 September 2007 22:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

That distinction will disappear in a review written by a reviewer who hates even the good stuff within that genre

yes, absolutely: and i have been that reviewer. but then i'd far, far rather read someone monstering oasis/stereophonics/kula shaker/etc than i would listen to any of their music :)

i guess my point is that there's still journalistic validity in a completely biased review -- as long as it's entertaining and not just bile for the sake of it. (although, where kula shaker are concerned, i'd forgive anyone for bile for the sake of it.)

grimly fiendish, Monday, 24 September 2007 22:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

(reads this entire thread)

Yawn. ILX has gotten so boring lately.

Mr. Snrub, Monday, 24 September 2007 23:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

sign my petition to get a Geir Hongro quote into Bartlett's

ciderpress, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 01:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

i guess my point is that there's still journalistic validity in a completely biased review -- as long as it's entertaining and not just bile for the sake of it.

If I wrote a really entertaining and very biased review, slaughtering an otherwise critically acclaimed hip-hop album because it didn't have any great newly composed tunes and had way too little melody and way too much rhythm, then it would be really great and useful? For hip-hop fans even?

Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 09:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

High time we made a stand and shook up
The views of the common man
DJ'ss the man we love the most
Could you be, could you be squeaky clean
And smash any hope of democracy?
As the headline says youre free to choose
Theres an egg on your face and mud on your shoes
One of these days theyre gonna call it the blues

And anything is possible when your'e
Sowing the seeds of love
Anything is possible
Sowing the seeds of love

I spy tears in their eyes
They look to the skies for some kind
Of divine intervention
Food goes to waste!
So nice to eat, so nice to taste
Politician grannie with you
r high ideals
Have you no idea how the majority feels?
So without love and a promised land
Were fools to the rules of a government plan
Kick out the style: bring back the jam

Anything is possible when...

Sowing the seeds
The birds and the bees
My girlfriend and me in love
Feel the pain
Talk about it
If youre a worried man
Then shout about it
Open hearts
Feel about it
Open minds
Think about it
Everyone
Read about it
Everyone
Scream about it!
Everyone
Everyone
Everyone
Read about it
Read about it
Read it in the books in the crannies
And the nooks there are books to read

Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 09:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

depends on your definition of 'entertaining' really.

To take your point slightly, what you really want in this situation is someone who can say "I really like white guitar based melodic poo, so understand me chillun, when I say that this Kula Shaker album is a pile of crap and even Cast are better"

sort of thing.. right?

(post certified sarcasm-free)

Mark G, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 10:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

To take your point slightly, what you really want in this situation is someone who can say "I really like white guitar based melodic poo, so understand me chillun, when I say that this Kula Shaker album is a pile of crap and even Cast are better"

sort of thing.. right?

Yes. (Except Cast isn't better) ;)

Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 10:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

How come you never see white guitar based melodic poo anymore

DJ Mencap, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 10:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

If I wrote a really entertaining and very biased review, slaughtering an otherwise critically acclaimed hip-hop album because it didn't have any great newly composed tunes and had way too little melody and way too much rhythm, then it would be really great and useful? For hip-hop fans even?

if it was entertaining then it would be entertaining. but i somehow doubt it would be.

stevie, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 10:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

oh come on, the work of geir hongro appearing in the national press would be entertainment enough surely.

acrobat, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Remembering the horrible reign of the v similar Tom Cox as Guardian pop critic I can tell thee no.

Raw Patrick, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

Geir Hongro's Tribes Of Pop

DJ Mencap, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

If I wrote a really entertaining and very biased review ...

it might not be "great" or "useful", but if it was well-written and entertaining and made me laugh, or even get wildly angry, then yeah, job well done.

grimly fiendish, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 14:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Geir Hongro, if all that matters is tune, why don't bands just play the lead melody one note at a time on a keyboard with no arrangement or production at all? Surely these indie bands you big up and love so much have a sound that adds to their appeal? For you anyway...

max r, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 17:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

Why would anyone listen to any of those Britpop acts when you could listen to any of the superior acts from the 60s and 70s that they ripped off? Pulp were pretty good, though.

max r, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 20:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

The tune isn't all that matters, it is just what matters the most. Plus the belonging chords matter just as much, which means it needs at least a backing instrument that is able to play chords.

Why would anyone listen to any of those Britpop acts when you could listen to any of the superior acts from the 60s and 70s that they ripped off?

Because the world needs new songs. Not the same old songs, but new ones. In the same style, but with new melodies. After a while, you get sick of humming the old songs, and you need new songs to hum.

Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 21:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

what happens once robert pollard has written a song with every possible melody? (eta: 2015)

ciderpress, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 21:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Before anyone has managed to write a song with every possible melody, Sufjan Stevens has released a concept album covered every single American state. And with non-concept albums in-between even.

Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 21:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Because the world needs new songs. Not the same old songs, but new ones. In the same style, but with new melodies. After a while, you get sick of humming the old songs, and you need new songs to hum."

But why not new styles as well? What's the difference?

max r, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 22:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nothing wrong with new styles as long as the contain hummable songs. The new styles of the past 20 have been too much about rhythm and repetition though, not enough about melody and harmony.

Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 22:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

Plus entirely new styles are not needed. One should rather mix the styles already existing, creating new conglomerations of already known stylistic elements.

Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 22:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Eh? Don't you think your criteria for what makes a song enjoyable or worthwhile is bit limited, Mr Grongo?

max r, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 22:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's the only criteria that mattered until 1920 in classical music, and until the late 80s in popular music.

Geir Hongro, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 22:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's nonsense. Classical composers were always experimenting with different orchestral arrangements, new instruments, etc...
And there's been experimentation with production techniques in pop since at least the late 60s.

max r, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 23:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

I was going to send this thread around to some friends b/c of the interesting review but then the thread got derailed. still derailed i see.

Billy Pilgrim, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 00:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's nonsense. Classical composers were always experimenting with different orchestral arrangements, new instruments, etc...
And there's been experimentation with production techniques in pop since at least the late 60s.

But melodies were always an important part of 60s pop and 19 century classical music, even if there were other elements too the melody was always there at the bottom.

Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 09:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

geir do you like harry warren?

Pashmina, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 10:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

i regret reviving this thread.

fucking geir.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, September 24, 2007 2:48 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Link

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 10:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

Votes for imagebombing?

Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 10:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

there should be a 'killfile last 100 posts' function

Just got offed, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 10:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 10:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

ilm has been silent for 17 minutes, as the LBZC plots its next move

Just got offed, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 11:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

roffle roffle, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 11:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

I couldn't find a .jpg of three pots and one kettle, sorry.

roffle roffle, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 11:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 11:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

TS mr idée fixe vs the holy trinity of lazy, adolescent snark.

(ha, xposts)

Pashmina, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 11:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

That looks like a Yello video that never was.

NickB, Wednesday, 26 September 2007 11:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Personally I think their comeback album is indeed better than any of their two 90s albums. They have stripped away all of the "indie" elements and gone fully fledged hippie-pop with quite a hint of 70s softrock/pomp pop. Which fits them greatly.

Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 01:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

I like "Tattva."

Mr. Snrub, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 02:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqncFetwku0

Yeah, they sucked

Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 23:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm happy to say that KulaShaker never graced my stereo - I thought they were bollocks.

this DG guy OTM

DG, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 23:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Mr Snrub OTM 2 posts ago

Noodle Vague, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 23:30 (6 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.