shex Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 is anyone familiar with this rock band from australia? their album is brilliant, definately one of the best if not the best rock album of 2002, in my opinion.... it's almost cliche, but like eveyrone says their a mix of the beatles and nirvana... not so much nirvana... the problem is that the songs they first released were the nirvana-ish songs from the album, so many mellow-rockers are missing out on their music because of misconception. their album features an array of great songs, mellow to grungy... however, their live show is aweful. if anyone has seen them live, they would've witnessed singer and voccalist craig nichols... he's an absolute twit! he screams and goes absolutely crazy on stage, playing out of tune, and singing out of tune. then he'll play slower or faster than the beat, messing up the other band members, or he'll play something completely wrong, or won't play at all... looking at the other band members, you can see a look of anger and they just wanna kick the crap out of him. he has a good voice, and playing ability, pity he doesn't use it live. if he could control himself they'd be the biggest band in the world right now!! nichols and the bassist beat the crap out of each other a few weeks back... i can't see them continuing to play together for an extended time, but if they did, they have the potential to become huge. - roses on your breath but graveyards on your soul - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornbread_medhotmail.com Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I'm not trying to slag on The Vines, but I can't stand them. After reading your story about them live, it amazes me they even were signed. Perhaps I missed the boat on another band, but, I'm not disappointed I missed it. There will be another along any minute now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBFLA Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 sheX: Don't know if you've read this link, but you might like it: http://slate.msn.com/id/2074875/ MSN Slate Sorry, (you may have to cut 'n paste, newbie to UBB Code (what the hell is that, just gimme that good ol' time HTML code, hehe)... JBFLA Jim Confirmed RoscoeHead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowbell Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I agree with cornbread. Can't stand em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_dont_fret Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Unless they are a band from the 60s or 70s, "The______(insert favorite word)" sucks. The Vines, The Stripes, The blah blah blah. All sounds like crap, and bad Nirvana to boot. All screaming little mongrels that need autotune and lip synching and the sort. But if it floats your boat.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundcrafter Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I saw an interview with the singer(I'm being generous calling him a singer ) and he was WAAAAY out there...who knows what he smokes/is on...but it has to be a lot of it. There're a couple of songs by other The ____ groups of nowadays that I like, but the vines I see as the worst of the ones out there...No offense, Shex "If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit. Unless you are a table." -Mitch Hedberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamixoye Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I like some of their songs...I dunno what people have against them, especially considering some of the other lame stuff that is out there that seems to be so popular. I heard they were booked on Leno but trashed the stage before the show and were kicked out. They are not the best band, but "Get Free" and "Highly Evolved" are two songs I really like. One or two of their other songs are okay, and the rest I've heard I could do without. Singing/playing out of tune is lame, though. If that's true...not cool. I believe that is the greatest reply I\'ve ever read! I\'m not even joking. -- justinruins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Soundcrafter: I saw an interview with the singer(I'm being generous calling him a singer ) and he was WAAAAY out there...who knows what he smokes/is on...but it has to be a lot of it. There're a couple of songs by other The ____ groups of nowadays that I like, but the vines I see as the worst of the ones out there...No offense, Shex I must say, none of the; "The"bands have impressed me much. The Strokes, The VInes, The Donna's, The Hives......They give a brand new meaning to the phrase; What "The" F*#K was that!! Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockwoodB Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I agree w/ what seems to be the consensus here, any "the" band will probably suck in a variety of different ways...are the Vines the ones w/ the singer that thinks America will go to war if he tells them too? The really cocky one? If he is then I REALLY hate the Vines, if the rest of the band is cool then they should ditch the dumbass and get someone w/ a head on his/her shoulders. "Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." --Henry David Thoreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 He/they are definitely the ones of which you speak. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shex Posted January 28, 2003 Author Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by Adamixoye: Singing/playing out of tune is lame, though. If that's true...not cool.if you want an example, download the video of them playing get free on letterman... he goes absolutely nuts there, and towards the end the drummer throws his sticks and buggers off with a damn pissed off look on his face. - roses on your breath but graveyards on your soul - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumpelstiltskin. Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 i'm sure there were a lot of people dissatisfied with the chops of the ramones when they first hit the scene. now they're usually referred to as legendary. but whatever, they were just a band making rough, garage music at a time when pop was overproduced and rock was bloated with pompous arena acts... robb. because i like people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Originally posted by robb.: i'm sure there were a lot of people dissatisfied with the chops of the ramones when they first hit the scene. now they're usually referred to as legendary. but whatever, they were just a band making rough, garage music at a time when pop was overproduced and rock was bloated with pompous arena acts... robb.Actually, I was never a fan of the ramones, but when they came out they were in fact unique and original. When every major label dumps a "THE" bands into the marketplace simultaneously, you have to know that they are just as pretentious and pre-fabricated as the backstreet boys/britney clones were/are. The Ramones were cool for the same reason Nirvana was cool. The current crop of the "THE" bands are, IMHO, not very cool for the lack of those same reasons. Also, having seen all of them in the last few months, I am just not impressed by any of them, except maybe the Strokes, because they actually sounded like a band. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cup Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 "The" Bands? Ohh, I've never heard of this new genre (genre? Another terrible word) I bought the Vines L.P and liked it! I really liked it for about three weeks. There ARE some fantstic songs on it. The singer wishes to be Kurt Cobain, So what! He trashes his kit, So what! He thinks the world revolves to keep him happy, SO WHAT!! He has made a good album (IMO), NOW we're talking! CupMcMali...this monkey's gone to heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanYmaL X Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I guess I missed something there... but what does a 'THE' in a band's name have to do with anything? Never heard of The Vines... but from the sound of it I wouldn't be interested... 'THE' or not. I don't like Korn or Limp Bisquik, either, and they don't have a 'THE.' Is there really a label marketing strategy to put a THE in front of a name before they send that band out into the world? THE DanYmal_X Aerodyne Jazz Deluxe Pod X3 Live Roland Bolt-60 (modified) Genz Benz GBE250-C 2x10 Acoustic 2x12 cab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowbell Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Well dynamal, its just that most bands with "the" in their name tend to suck. Just because Limp B. or Eminem don't have a "The" in there name doesn't mean they don't suck. "The" exceptions for me are The Eagles, The Beatles, and of course, The Max Weinberg 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by danymal_x: . . . Is there really a label marketing strategy to put a THE in front of a name before they send that band out into the world? THE DanYmal_XYeah, it appears so. The Strokes, The Hives, The White Stripes and The Vines all appeared on the scene at about the same time, and all have a similar under-produced/retro sound. Basically it's the latest fad. Ah, nice marmot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumpelstiltskin. Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 fad, fine, whatever. except that the white stripes have been making their music in detroit for a few years now. but they were definitely cashing in on today's fad. i'm glad i got my senses straight, because i used to think the same thing about weezer. it's too bad, because i think the blue album would mean even more to me than it already does if i had given it an honest shot, instead of being jaded. robb. because i like people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Scootdog: Originally posted by danymal_x: . . . Is there really a label marketing strategy to put a THE in front of a name before they send that band out into the world? THE DanYmal_XYeah, it appears so. The Strokes, The Hives, The White Stripes and The Vines all appeared on the scene at about the same time, and all have a similar under-produced/retro sound. Basically it's the latest fad.Thats all I'm sayin' Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_dup3 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by robb.: i'm sure there were a lot of people dissatisfied with the chops of the ramones when they first hit the scene. Did the Ray-mones have a restaurant where they served grilled steaks, or something? That's the only chops I could associate with them. I like a lot of simple pop/rock for its verve but the Ramones reminded me of the Three Stooges---very dull & basically just one "joke". One or two of their records were mildly amusing but they were really just the non-glam version of the New York Dolls, right? If someone wants to find some stripped-down, no-frills rock music from that era (well, actually a bit earlier) that does have both wit & chops, search out recordings by a band called the Flaming Groovies. They're hardly the best ever musicians but trust me, once you hear them you won't bother with the Ramones any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanYmaL X Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 'The' name says it all, huh? But I bet you could name just as many or more groups without the 'The' that are just as crappy. Co-inkydink? I think so. The 'the' trend would still be there if those bands were actually good. I think the point that is missed in all of this is that there just isn't as much notable work coming out of musicville... I'm not saying that there isn't any, just not what you'd call groundbreaking... I'd much rather listen to any pre late 90's era rock radio station than listen to a current top 40 station any day. I feel that today's music just doesn't have the same soul as yesterday's for whatever reason... maybe I'll start a new thread... Oh, and I like 'The' Ramones... DX Aerodyne Jazz Deluxe Pod X3 Live Roland Bolt-60 (modified) Genz Benz GBE250-C 2x10 Acoustic 2x12 cab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by danymal_x: ...I think the point that is missed in all of this is that there just isn't as much notable work coming out of musicville... I'm not saying that there isn't any, just not what you'd call groundbreaking... I can see your point. Kinda makes me think that the "artists" are on the other side of the mixing board in the studio nowadays (producers.) In the rock genre anyways. Ah, nice marmot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanYmaL X Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Scootdog: Originally posted by danymal_x: ...I think the point that is missed in all of this is that there just isn't as much notable work coming out of musicville... I'm not saying that there isn't any, just not what you'd call groundbreaking... I can see your point. Kinda makes me think that the "artists" are on the other side of the mixing board in the studio nowadays (producers.) In the rock genre anyways.That indeed is a big part of it... its a different generation, raised with rock & roll as a matter of fact, not like previous generation(s) who had to pioneer the sounds, styles and, well just about everything. This is what happens when things get taken for granted by a generation, and they lose the true value of what their parents had to earn... again, a topic that could go on forever, yesno? DX Aerodyne Jazz Deluxe Pod X3 Live Roland Bolt-60 (modified) Genz Benz GBE250-C 2x10 Acoustic 2x12 cab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 danymal_x wrote: That indeed is a big part of it... its a different generation, raised with rock & roll as a matter of fact, not like previous generation(s) who had to pioneer the sounds, styles and, well just about everything. This is what happens when things get taken for granted by a generation, and they lose the true value of what their parents had to earn... again, a topic that could go on forever, yesno That is a very astute observation. That is the main reason for the stylistic malaise that is everywhere on the radio and the mainstream music industry these days. 60's rock had the benefit of many musical influences that were prevalent at the time. In the early 60's on top 40 radio you could have the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, B.B. King, Peggy Lee all in the top ten at the same time. Kids were hearing a lot of stylistic diversity in music. When they became creators in their own right, they were drawing from a deep well of music. The seminal people in Rock and Soul, had a lot of different colors in their palette. These days, especially in Hip-Hop and Rock worlds, it sounds like most of the popular acts are fourth and fifth generations of one style. What I mean by that is that Groups like Nelly sound like they drew their whole style from a handful of 90's rap acts. And the current crop of "THE" bands sound like they are deriving their entire style from a couple punk/grunge sources. That's why so many groups in those two genre's sound so similar; they have only a couple of colors on their palettes. I don't think that the current artist's are less talented, just less knowledgeable of the vast sea of music that was once everywhere on the radio, but now is not. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornbread_medhotmail.com Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 What bugs me about the music scene these days is seeing bands that sound the same coming out all around the same time. It's like all the record companies hear about this one band who is smokin and all want to sign them. The smokin band signs with one label and all the other labels race to find a clone, sign them and put them out. The music scene has become diluted, or polluted, choose your verb. It's both good and bad for music. It's good because we get more music but it's bad in that the majority of the bands sound as if they're uninterested in playing in that band. There are a plethora of good bands that deserve a chance to be heard by a broader audience, but, the record companies look past them in trying to keep up with the Jones's. This has been going on since the recording industry began. When the Beatles first were signed, you had several bands of similar make-up flooding the store shelves. Most of them got lost in the flood of the next flavor of the week. The truly great acts survive each successive wave of trends. This holds true in every style of music. Will this ever change? Who knows? I can only hope the industry will stop playing the competition and actually take the time to bring about good bands who deserve to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickT Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 For me The Vines were an amazing watershed in my musical life. I saw them on TV and for the first time truely realised that it is possible for a band to have absolutely no redeming features. Even with bands I don't like I can normally find something, such as: great production, good tune, nice drum sounds etc. Not with The Vines...I saw them on "Later with Jules Holland". They couldn't play, couldn't sing and they couldn't write. I have to say though..."Get Free" isn't a bad tune...it's just that they can't play it live. Free your mind and your ass will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_dup3 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Originally posted by Jotown: [QB]danymal_x wrote: That indeed is a big part of it... its a different generation, raised with rock & roll as a matter of fact, not like previous generation(s) who had to pioneer the sounds, styles and, well just about everything. This is what happens when things get taken for granted by a generation, and they lose the true value of what their parents had to earn... again, a topic that could go on forever, yesno That is a very astute observation. That is the main reason for the stylistic malaise that is everywhere on the radio and the mainstream music industry these days. 60's rock had the benefit of many musical influences that were prevalent at the time. In the early 60's on top 40 radio you could have the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, B.B. King, Peggy Lee all in the top ten at the same time. Actually BB King was only ever on the segregated R&B charts in that era (at least until "the Thrill Is Gone") & his first national TV appearance wasn't 'til about 1967. There's always been a tendency for popular music to be self-imitative & for the "most common denominators" to be most popular. But the point that Jotown makes is at least partially true; as the bizniz of entertainment has grown (like all other industries, from clothing to the foods we have available), it has been harder to get exposed to unique, interesting artists other than the current "flavor". The cycles of imitation have also grown more tight, as has the exclusion of any who aren't young & maleable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumpelstiltskin. Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 new zwan record came out yesterday. there's some hope that good music can make its way thru. robb. because i like people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bear Jew Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Wow... What a loaded topic.... Here's my take ('cause I'm so everyone has been dying to see what I have to say about this... OK. There are TONS of bands who sound like The Vines and The Strokes. Always have been. It's basic garage rock. It had been an underground, relatively unknown thing for a while. Now it's gotten to be a big thing, and all the larger labels are sucking up previously unknown bands in an attempt to cash in on the sound's current popularity. As Robb mentioned, The White Stripes have been doing their thing for a quite a while. So have The Hives. Here in Philly, a band called The Burning Brides has been doing something similar for a few years as well. The Burning Brides recently signed with V2 Records and played on Conan O'Brien's show. I'm sure many, many folks will say they're just another one of those "The" bands jumping on the fad, bandwagon, flavor of the month thing, but, in reality, they're just taking their shot at the "brass ring" (or whatever passes for it) in the music biz. Now's their chance to capitalize on the wave of their genre's popularity by signing with a major... I say they should go for it, since this might very well be their only chance at riding on a tour bus and playing big rooms... Other "The"-sounding bands: Electric Frankenstein The Supersuckers The Hellacopters The Bulemics Rancid Vat Limecell The Streetwalkin' Cheetahs The River City Rebels The Bad Vibes Any of these guys could have been the next "The" band to break... This recent influx of popular "The" bands isn't due to some gang of talentless musicians with a conspiracy to ruin music. If you wanna blame anyone... blame the labels for taking the genre and sucking the joy out of it by over-marketing and trying to cash in. As for there not being any "groundbreaking" new music out there... I would suggest that there is plenty. You just have to know where to look for it and have the patience to wade through all the other crap out there in order to find it. \m/ Erik "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." --Sun Tzu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcr Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I think DX & Jotown made an interesting observation, & I'd like to add that it seems that rock & roll was best when it had its roots in music that wasn't other rock & roll. Some of the bands that really made a lasting difference--like Zep, Who, Stones, Steely Dan, Yes, ELP, Crimson, Eagles, Skynyrd, CCR, CSN(Y), Dead, Santana (old), & so on--had their roots in other music, like blues, jazz, various forms of classical, avant-garde, country, folk, bluegrass, Latin, etc. You mix that with rock sounds & beats & you've got exciting new music. But since then the industry has sort of turned in on itself, & guess what--it's been a long, long time since it's felt like much new ground has been broken anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.