Savages

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.

Indeed, being distinctive doesn't really matter as much as "being good at what you do"... and this band are good at what they do.

haha that's some pretty vague critical criteria there

but yeah, I can't disagree. people who are good at stuff are good at that stuff.

Is scott talking about

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtK2cL6AodBXn3233mqlByjOLnv2cQ9zqWcKzG6BK1Dw5kOTSI

the only band i ever heard described as a klingon band is magma but i'm kind of expecting ilx to have it's own klingon band

yes the one in the picture! what's the name again?

Planningtorock

I just watched what may be the most punk rock thing I've ever witnessed. wow. someone rip this off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt13rfXA6ts

DJP otm throughout

i do think it's fair, though, to suggest that savages are quite deliberately constructing their music and presentation from elements of a specific retro style. making pop music is rarely an act of creation ex nihilo, but one of the things that makes pop interesting is the potential for novel synthesis, old things put together in unfamiliar ways. there's not much opportunity for that here. it's a faithful reproduction of what has been.

personally, i don't see anything wrong with that. i love lots of formally constrained garage punk that doesn't push at the parameters so much as make a glorious racket within them. i have a deep-down fondness for the style. i'm less devoted to angsty post punk, but i do like it, so i appreciate savages with a bit less enthusiasm.

the question for me is, "what separates a good throwback act from a bad one?" imo, it's usually some combination of tunes, energy, and an interesting take on the familiar. seems to me that savages have the energy covered (and then some), and the songs are decent. there isn't anything about their approach that really surprises or intrigues me, but that can wait. i'm generally supportive, but not yet a fan.

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

― far too much asshole flesh (DJP), Thursday, May 9, 2013 10:15 AM (45 minutes ago)

this is a good point. we accept that dance music doesn't have to be "distinctive" in order to succeed because we accept that the success of dance music is defined in large part by its functional qualitis. if it makes people want to dance, it's good.

we can evaluate rock music by similar criteria. if it makes people want to get drunk and loudly misbehave in small clubs (or parties or w/e), then it's doing the job. i imagine savages are quite successful by that measure.

so are they basically the Sha Na Na of post-punk?

if it makes people want to get drunk and loudly misbehave in small clubs (or parties or w/e), then it's doing the job

What if it makes you sip wine and talk thoughtfully on a divan?

I might come back to it in September but it just feels like the wrong time for them in every way.

look outside, your wish has been granted.

I've tried listening to this album a couple times on my headphones when I get into bed at night. I usually make it about one song in before I'm completely unconscious, so I guess you say that the music makes me sleep soundly. That's not a criticism, btw.

making pop music is rarely an act of creation ex nihilo, but one of the things that makes pop interesting is the potential for novel synthesis, old things put together in unfamiliar ways. there's not much opportunity for that here. it's a faithful reproduction of what has been.

I disagree with that last statement. I don't find them faithfully reproducing any one postpunk band's style (the Joy Division comparisons, again, are especially weird to me - there's exactly one song that, to my ear, has Hook-esque bass and an imitation of that instantly recognizable Martin Hannett drum sound). Hell, half the guitar work sounds (as has been stated upthread) like the work of East Bay Ray of the Dead Kennedys, and a lot more sounds like Ron Asheton of the Stooges. Neither of those were postpunk bands. So they're imitators, but they're also magpies, pulling stuff from here and there and reassembling it. And again, the songs are good ones.

Joy Division? Really? Huh. I don't hear them at all

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.

this is otm. love you, scott seward.

Hell, half the guitar work sounds (as has been stated upthread) like the work of East Bay Ray of the Dead Kennedys, and a lot more sounds like Ron Asheton of the Stooges. Neither of those were postpunk bands.

Yes, the beginning of "Husbands" keeps reminding me of "Holiday in Cambodia." There is a thread of hardcore in their sound, for sure.

("We draw on everything from proto-punk to post-punk to hardcore punk.")

x-ray spex and the slits sound pretty 'revolutionary' to me.

I disagree with that last statement. I don't find them faithfully reproducing any one postpunk band's style (the Joy Division comparisons, again, are especially weird to me - there's exactly one song that, to my ear, has Hook-esque bass and an imitation of that instantly recognizable Martin Hannett drum sound). Hell, half the guitar work sounds (as has been stated upthread) like the work of East Bay Ray of the Dead Kennedys, and a lot more sounds like Ron Asheton of the Stooges. Neither of those were postpunk bands. So they're imitators, but they're also magpies, pulling stuff from here and there and reassembling it. And again, the songs are good ones.

― 誤訳侮辱, Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:11 AM (50 minutes ago)

sure, i wasn't trying to draw a clear line between copyists (obviously beholden to a specific and formally codified style) and synthesists. most musicians fit somewhere in between those poles. the DKs guitar is a bit of a surprise, but it's period-appropriate, and there are few left field jabs of that sort in their sound, imo. the references seem pretty narrowly curated, limited, by and large, to late 70s/early 80s postpunk. that they're able to evoke that moment without being obviously derivative of any specific predecessor is to their credit.

then again, there are TONS of garage rock bands that sound like a polyglot mixture of post-sonics/seeds/stooges/VU influences, but few try to argue that they're anything other than conservative and perhaps derivative, even if enjoyably so. you can be derivative of a general style, after all.

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.

i know you've read it but this is the thesis of "rip it up and start again"

think a lot of the discussion itt is pretty silly, feel like ppl are getting hung up on things that are, like, common underlying assumptions we take for granted when talking about music. maybe we could unpack why ppl have so much trouble coming to terms with liking a post punk band in 2013? people still listen to rap music & it's barely any younger. maybe it's because post-punk went away and then came back, in this case largely intact? maybe because the people who were originally into it are now older but still influential in uk music press & have made a series of misguided attempts to bring it back? maybe it has to do with how post punk became new wave & has been part of pop music dna ever since?

think a lot of the discussion itt is pretty silly, feel like ppl are getting hung up on things that are, like, common underlying assumptions we take for granted when talking about music. maybe we could unpack why ppl have so much trouble coming to terms with liking a post punk band in 2013? people still listen to rap music & it's barely any younger. maybe it's because post-punk went away and then came back, in this case largely intact?

yeah, but post-punk isn't really equivalent to rap. rap is a big umbrella, like rock. post-punk matches up better with like, 80s era "old school" rap. if someone came along spitting in a fastidiously retro kool moe dee style over vintage beats (or w/e), there'd be exactly the same kind of push back. maybe a bit less, as "retro rap" is somewhat fresher as a concept than "retro rock".

More bands should ape Newcleus.

well if we're going there, more bands should ape Euromasters

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.

i see where this is coming from, but punk isn't just the conservative/conformist loudfastrules thing. it's also an ethos and sensibility that extends out into a hugely diverse body of art: crass, the cbgb's crew, no wave, flipper & the germs, gary panter, wire circa document & eyewitness, survival research laboratories, transgressive underground cinema, english postpunk, american indie and hardcore, noise as music, extremists like swans, "industrial culture", "pigfuck", etc.

tangential to this thread, but i get bugged by the "punk = ramones & pistols, lol punk is conservative" argument.

Gabber Gabber Hey.

xpost

xp yeah obv scott/simon reynolds are overestimating the vast futurism of disco funk jazz prog/psych and underestimating the radicalism of punk, i mean obviously scott owns some pretty cosmic disco records but that doesn't map onto your average 1977 listener's experience so nicely. the idea that punk was revolutionary was a product of cliches existing at the time, but that doesn't mean we can an equally misrepresentative cliche in the other direction made today is any better

contenderizer otm

I've never actually read any of simon's books. don't tell him. I like him though.

simon introduced me to joy press and the first thing she said was that she was a big fan of mine! omg I almost died! I love her. made me wish that I wrote more. #braggin