Savages

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.

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.