Savages

grammar correction: in sentence 2 add "signifies in terms of what I look for..."

Maybe it's because I spend most of my time in genres (metal, jazz) where there are rules and lineages and being influenced by your predecessors is not only not a bad thing but is half the point, but the foot-stomping "I can pinpoint all this band's influences therefore they are worthless" schtick going on in this thread is pretty fucking bizarre and incomprehensible to me. This is a good record. The songs are well written and compellingly performed. I don't know what else you people want from a record.

As an old man, I can only answer by saying: "something other than what I heard twenty-five years ago." Natural process of ageing innit.

I'd say natural process of chasing rainbows but that seems like an odd metaphor to use in relation to this album

I've reached the point in my life where I'm feeling nostalgic about the music of 2009.

As an old man, I can only answer by saying: "something other than what I heard twenty-five years ago." Natural process of ageing innit.

I'm younger than you, I think, but not by much (41). I have no problem hearing bands work in old styles. And I suspect you don't either, depending on the style. So why are this band so exceptionally offensive?

It doesn't really help that they're working in a style that already had a revival, and was done to death, only a few years ago. They're better than most of that stuff but my general feeling is "ANOTHER post-punk revival?"

x-post

As an old man, I can only answer by saying: "something other than what I heard twenty-five years ago."

Yeah, part of what excited me about this general sound initially (early 80s if not a little bit earlier) was that it sounded new to me at the time. I do think unperson (and others) have a point though. The truth is I just don't particularly like post-punk at this point (even most of the old stuff), so when I say I heard this already in the 80s, the real issue behind that may simply be that the sound has lost its appeal for me.

Wasn't going to listen to the album, but I am playing it now, and it does seem pretty good. I can certainly understand the appeal. I'd still take that Selma Oxor song over this.

I had to laugh that when I loaded ILM I thought to myself: I wonder how that Savages thread is doing. And there it was, at the top of the page. As amateurist said:

so it's not like they are some kind of lightning rod of controversy

although i'm sure ilx will work hard to make them one

I'm not exceptionally offended by the album - just bored, that's all. Sense of tradition in jazz/blues doesn't really cross over to rock because so much of rock's fabric has been about destruction and whenever anyone cries "in the tradition" then it's time for another "punk."

a lot of people's manner of showing how immune they are to music media and the hype it creates seems to be to go on and on and fucking on about it

This album reminds me that I've spent too long underrating Siouxsie.

(fwiw I don't really see any posts in this thread as examples of such)

except that punk was just reheated rockabilly...

Savages must be getting a completely different treatment in the UK than they are here because I heard about them via this thread; I don't really consider ILM to be an endless hype machine.

I thought it was streamlined pub rock? xpost

same thing.

DJP otm throughout, wtf ILX.

Sense of tradition in jazz/blues doesn't really cross over to rock because so much of rock's fabric has been about destruction and whenever anyone cries "in the tradition" then it's time for another "punk."

This is utter bullshit, and the most pernicious/unkillable myth in music. Rock's "fabric" has never been about destruction, GG Allin possibly excepted, and even he had someone making sure the promoter paid up at the end of the night. Rock is entertainment, and as such is dependent on reflexive and easily remembered gestures. "Punk" is a set of simple gestures, just like "metal" or "folk-rock" or whatever else. Sure, there are a few adventurers about at any given time, but they're only recognizable because of the endless sameness of everything that surrounds them, and their records don't sell very well, because most people want comfort food, even when it's disguised as something "shocking" or "path-breaking."

This is utter bullshit, and the most pernicious/unkillable myth in music.

this cannot really be restated enough times

when i think of the vast futuristic universes created by disco, funk, jazz, and prog/psych in the 70's and punk - the most conservative and retro movement outside of dixieland - gets labeled "revolutionary" i just laugh in that way i have of laughing. i mean i like punk cuz i like rock but it was about as revolutionary as my granny's chamber pot. fashionwise, it was a kick, i'll give you that. POST punk, on the other hand, is another thing all together. cuz then all the secret prog fans made records and we were off to the cosmos again.

All music is entertainment. Might as well not listen to any of it in that case. The thing about rock is its implicit motor of overthrowing (if not destroying) whatever boring bilge came before it. Otherwise "we" "should" "just" "put" "everything" "in" "inverted" "commas" "to" "spell" "out" "the" "analogy" "or" "selling" "point." Or accept that people just want gaudy colours and funny noises for a few seconds at a time and that whatever else happened in the last sixty years was a moderately engaging aberration, or red herring.

Phrases like "vast futuristic universes" make me think that perhaps humanity should just start all over again.

All music is entertainment. Might as well not listen to any of it in that case.

See, the first sentence doesn't lead to the second, for me.

i'm a sci-fi fan. and a futurist! and an honorary member of the Paris-based Ouvroir de Litterature Potentielle.

Sure, there are a few adventurers about at any given time, but they're only recognizable because of the endless sameness of everything that surrounds them, and their records don't sell very well, because most people want comfort food, even when it's disguised as something "shocking" or "path-breaking."

Fly-fishing, then.

i'm a sci-fi fan. and a futurist! and an honorary member of the Paris-based Ouvroir de Litterature Potentielle.

― scott seward, Thursday, 9 May 2013 15:53 (19 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No medals here, sir. Local maps only.

The thing about rock was originally stealing the black music kids were listening to anyway and repackaging it with white performers so that someone with the right skin color could make all the money.

when i think of the vast futuristic universes created by disco, funk, jazz, and prog/psych in the 70's and punk - the most conservative and retro movement outside of dixieland - gets labeled "revolutionary" i just laugh in that way i have of laughing. i mean i like punk cuz i like rock but it was about as revolutionary as my granny's chamber pot. fashionwise, it was a kick, i'll give you that. POST punk, on the other hand, is another thing all together. cuz then all the secret prog fans made records and we were off to the cosmos again.

most otm thing ever

Yeah but Dave Marsh (xp).

i'm also all for humanity starting all over again. unlike those layabout punks with their one ham-fisted chuck berry riff.

When I think of the vast saddo blokes who buy disco, funk, jazz and prog/psych from the 70s I remember why punk happened in the first place.

Those layabouts who lay about.

a lot of punk rock bands could use some more ham-fisted chuck berry riffs tbh

POST punk, on the other hand, is another thing all together. cuz then all the secret prog fans made records and we were off to the cosmos again.

I guess this highlights what I find boring about a band like Savages because what's getting labeled as post punk here just sounds to me like the dull, straightforward end of english rock music that came after punk without any of the funk, dub, krautrock or disco that made post-punk interesting.

"When I think of the vast saddo blokes who buy disco, funk, jazz and prog/psych from the 70s I remember why punk happened in the first place." - Margaret Thatcher

can't listen at work. i think i did see this vid back last year though and it was pretty good in maybe an old-fashioned way? like, "i used to like a bunch of music like this but i haven't heard stuff like it in a while so it's quite nice"? so i'll check it out.

Be right back gonna play Patrick Cowley.

"When I think of the vast saddo blokes who buy disco, funk, jazz and prog/psych from the 70s I remember why punk happened in the first place." - Margaret Thatcher, 'Punky Reggae Party'

Stand up Margaret!

G#5 A5 A5 A5 G#5 A5 A5 A5 G#5 A5 A5 A5...let ring...A5 A5 A5 (x4)

I don't know if I like this or not yet, but has anyone felt that the vocals sounded somewhat Geddy Lee at times? Kept thinking that, and thinking that it probably wasn't what they were trying for.

― dlp9001, Wednesday, May 8, 2013 7:56 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Probably explains why I like this, although she sounds way more like Siouxsie than the Gedster.

there's definitely a Geddy timbre going on mixed in with all the Siouxsie-via-Karen O-isms

is anyone ripping off the pop group these days? or flux's uncarved block album? someone should rip that off. i was just listening to a very punk harrison birtwhistle album from 1974, but NOW i'm playing that ear trumpet album from the 80's. sounds awesome. wish someone would rip that kinda thing off. speaking of the banshees. you guys know that record, right?

even ear trumpet sound like they are ripping off wire at times though...people couldn't resist even back then.

people have been "ripping off" each other's musical ideas since music was invented

The only Geddy I could detect in her voice was that wobbly thing she does on long notes, like Geddy does in 'A Farewell To Kings' ("beating dOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOwn the multitudes!" etc.)

But yeah, DJP is pretty much otm... I hear it as that little Geddyism mixed in with Siouxie (the obvious vocal influence), with bits and pieces of Karen O.

I played "Area 52" and "She Will" back to back -- it worked!

FFS you don't need to be revolutionary, you just need to be distinctive. Savages aren't.

wait, what was the name of that klingon goth band that everyone liked on here for a minute? i'll never remember and i need to hear that song now. playing chuck berry at the moment though...

You obviously don't need to be distinctive; if you did, half the dance music I see celebrated on this site would get ignored.