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

"...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!

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.

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.

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

melody, obv.

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 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.

Pastiche is musical genius.

And a good tune shouldn't be changed or "shaped" it should be kept the way the composer intended it.

And a good tune shouldn't be changed or "shaped" it should be kept the way the composer intended it.

most composers, including Beethoven, Chopin, and all the romantics you claim to like, disagree strongly with you on this point, as the use of a theme by another composer is a time- and tradition-honored practice; the only constant is that one does not keep the melody "the way the composer intended it," as to do so would be pointless. That is to say: most composers would say your assertion there is nonsense.

ban geir

but Oasis used the stolen melodies in a real kind of interesting way by bolting them to a shoegaze / drone rock non dynamic tempered with the first wave of over compression made them more than whatever parts they were a sum of. maybe. i wrote a proper piece about this, but it's bad form to link yr own pieces on ilx isn't it. it's like oasis changed the form but not the content or something.

BAN GEIR BAN GEIR BAN GEIR BAN GEIR BAN GEIR BAN GEIR BAN GEIR

i wrote a proper piece about this, but it's bad form to link yr own pieces on ilx isn't it

Let's hope no-one tries to do this on this thread

in all seriousness, ban geir

Wellllllll...

Oasis reduced the whole of the alternate/indie sector to "top ten hits, anything else isn't good enough" and all the inventive / quirky / etc bedrock disappeared.

He's still only 34? Fuck me.

His age hasn't prevented him from still talking bollocks though, I notice.

bang eir

http://i10.ebayimg.com/06/i/000/a4/91/6908_1_b.JPG

It is strange how disagreeing with the typical ILM-opinion that "hip-hop rules, "white" music sucks" can stir so much emotion.

the typical ILM-opinion that "hip-hop rules, "white" music sucks"

yr evidences, let me see them

but Oasis used the stolen melodies

Oasis didn't steal melodies. They pastiched styles. Which is a lot better and actually a sign of musical genius.

Do you like Neil Innes?

[It is strange how disagreeing with the typical ILM-opinion that "hip-hop rules, "white" music sucks" can stir so much emotion.

-- Geir Hongro, Monday, September 24, 2007 2:35 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

no emotion here, chief.

xpost (or, actually, better response = )

Talent Borrows, Genius Steals.

Hip-hop and house/electronica was about to destroy music, and Britpop was needed to re-estalish the tune ass all that mattered again.

http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/original/shock.jpg

I take in then Geir that you have no response to the use of themes by other composers in classical music

kinda figured as much

i regret reviving this thread.

fucking geir.

dude, such threads give oxygen to the fires of ignorance, bigotry and stupidity that ultimately consume all of geir's arguments, don't sweat it.

LOL, groundhog day.

The point in case here is the reviewer should never have reviewed that album at all. If the reviewer dislikes then entire idea of a bunch of white guys with guitars making old-fashioned tuneful music influenced by 60s and 70s music, then let someone else review them instead, and let this guy stick to his hip-hip or house instead. Those of us you like tuneful music aren't interested in the opinions of those who don't.

let this guy stick to his hip-hip

...hooray?

Geirhog Day

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

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.

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.

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 :/

et bloody cetera ad infinitum.

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.

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

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.)

(reads this entire thread)

Yawn. ILX has gotten so boring lately.

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

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?

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

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)

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) ;)

How come you never see white guitar based melodic poo anymore

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.

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

that is quite astute

you should write about music!!!

perhaps the 90s were a good time in general to grab lapels and bellow, utterly confident in the righteousness of whatever it is you were bellowing. they strike me as a time of plenty, where one didn't have to second-guess oneself because Everything Was Turning Out OK, especially in The West

this is only a vague notion I have, though, and I'm willing to be disabused

i am slightly astute sometimes but actually it's someone else's insight

you should write about music!!!

:)

this wasn't a bad album really. cute in a way

Seems appropriate. RIP.