I'm gonna try to post some video's and or links to new music each week around Tuesday or Wednesday:
Band Of Horses new album is fantastic, despite my brother Darren's claim that they are a "poor man's My Morning Jacket." I haven't been this excited by a band since Oingo Boingo.
Radiohead will let you choose the price of their most recent gem In Rainbows...I kid you not. I think most of the songs have been performed live for years but it is well worth a download. Careful with the pound to dollar conversion.
One of my favorite songs from the album is Reckoner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I love me some Oingo Boingo. I will give this Band of Horses a try. By the way Brother Darren is a poor man's David Faustino, and Fettucini Alfredo is Kraft Macaroni and Cheese for Adults.
I was actually going to write a scholarly writing paper doing an economic analysis of how the internet is going to change the music industry; using the Radiohead scenario as a backdrop...but I'm not. I will instead write on the property rights of space. I say it all belongs to The Rockettes...I mean have you seen those high kicks?
I saw Oingo Boingo LIVE so HAH!
Yah mon, one of my first tapes when I was like 12 was Oingo Boingo. Been a fan for like 20+ years. Righteous. Also, In Rainbows kicks butt, we ended up only paying like £4 which translates to like $6.99. It totally rocks, but tell me you love Thom Yorke's last solo album and you win a prize. A beautiful beautiful prize.
I am excited about the new Radiohead. I haven't downloaded it yet. I am having a inner debate about how much I should pat for it. on the one hand i want them to have as much money as possible, they deserve it. on the other hand, if they would have put a minimum amount if they didn't want folks to pay $0.00. and they have milked me for plenty of money in the past. i just don't know.
I haven't listened to the BoH's newest effort. It's not that I don't like them, they're alright, but they copied the sound of MMJ. As have other bands. Great Lake Swimmers are grand (i reckon a shade better than this merry band of Horses), but they are another poor man's MMJ.
As for mr. taylors remark...i give no credence to the opinion of a man who thinks "I'm a Believer" was written by the Monkees and not Neil Diamond and then comes to a strangers blog and touts his obtuseness.
First, let me just say how much I am enjoying the Taylor v. Brother Darren verbal spat, if nothing else I want my blog to be a haven for strangers to quarrel through the written word and snark.
Regarding Radiohead: the final factor that must be included in your payment equation is this; will the quantity of your payment effect the future decision of other bands to follow this trend and allow consumers to choose their price.
I paid $5 following this logic:
i. I am a consumer of Radioheads art and they deserve compensation as a means to illustrate my admiration and appreciation.
ii. I have downloaded much of their music for free and purchased a few of their albums at full retail price. At this point we are even.
iii. They pocket every single dollar that people choose to pay by cutting out the middleman. I hope other bands choose to do the same. Thereby helping me the consumer save money.
iv. I am a sucker for the tangible. As soon as they release the CD, all they have to do is throw it in a pretty package, slap a sticker with the words limited edition on it, and I will fork over another $15.
Band Of Horses new album is incredible, easily equal to MMJ's Z. The only similarities I find between the two are the hollow vocals. MMJ's voice is more of a forced falsetto, BofH sounds more natural.
That is quite the "only" similarity don't you think...the sound of ones vocals? and forced falsetto?!? I can't even comment...Bermuda Highway...you can't touch those vocals.
However, taste is slimy and thusly slippery and difficult to pin down. Long live band of horses and their ilk.
Ok ok ok ok ok ok OK. Forced falsetto was a bit much. OK.
I have to remind you that my first intro to MMJ was there much older stuff. The vocals on that old stuff sounds nothing like the imaculate Z. Agreed.
In fact, I turned to youtube for resolution on this important matter and really it only (some what) stregnthed your premise.
Witness:
MMJ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjLFG0i2_AE
B of H (clearly drunk)- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmoNyh8PPhc
On a side note: MMJ's drummer equals 300lbs of purified drumming pleasure.
nice observation. Jim James is amazing, live and recorded. And many older songs are not as grand as Z, but some are more so. Z is, however, a golden example of what that band is capable of. Do we agree that the sound of the lead vocals is a major part of the sound of the band? Guns & Roses sans Axel...pass. So if I am craving a hallow and empty hall vocal sound, I will go with MMJ every time; though BoH has fine songs (I first heard Funeral a few years back, so I have enjoyed their songs since Our Swords was called The Bass Song).
senor ibid (I seem to have forgotten how to insert the tilde), do you tire yourself out trying to act like a connaisseur of both the english language and the melodic melodies of music all day long?
1-Almost never add "ness" to the end of a word; unless it is necessary as in the word preparedness (right Matt?). Obtuseness is a dead/monochromatic word. You should try harder to vividly describe to the reader my ignorance and lack of intelligence. i.e., "You obtusely touted an erroneous comment", or "Your obtuse remark was without merit". Now you try. That paints a better picture of what an uneducated moron I actually am.
2-I admit I said Smash Mouth covered the Monkees "I'm a Believer". Moreover, Neil Diamond did write the song (and actually had recorded it but nobody ever eard it except label heads). However, at that time, early 1966, Mr. Diamond was a no name songwriter whose job it was to create hits for a Label's faces. That brings up two important questions. What is a cover? Is it when an artist preforms a song which was written by someone else, or is it when an artist preforms a song preformed by someone else. When I made my Monkees comment earlier on your blog I recieved much guff, yet you annouonced to everyone how great the Beatles cover of the Top Notes "Twist and Shout" was. One problem...The Top Notes didn't write "T&S"..Phil Medley and Burt Russell did. Additionally "Papa Don't Preach" (I agree Ozzie's silver spoon daughter's version of the song was horrifying) was not written by Madonna but by Brian Elliot. Note...the album cover does say additional lyrics by Madonna but we all know that means nothing.
Along those same lines, 99.987% of all "Motown" artists could never be covered because each song was written by Barry Gordy and the likes. So you can see the slippery slope which is created when debating the definition of cover. E.g., Jimi's "Watchtower" was obviously a cover of Dylan, but Dylan preformed and made that song famous before Hendrix. "Mr. Tambourine Man" was written by Dylan but was released and made a #1 hit by The Byrds before Dylan even recorded or released it. Who was covering whom? (obviously Dylan was being covered) Sticking with the Byrds, would you call their hit "Turn, Turn, Turn" a cover because it was actually written by the author of Ecclesiastes? (there is much theological debate who the actual author was). More yet, it was written by the hand of a prophet under the inspiration of the Old Testament God. I hope we don't live in a world, under your definition of cover, where I hear, "Have you heard Destiny's Child's cover of Iehovah's "Turn, Turn, Turn?"
In conclusion, Neil Diamond made "I'm a Believer" just as famous as Phil Medley and Burt Russel made "Twist and Shout" famous. I don't think I am alone when I say that Smash Mouth covered the Monkees. To clear up the waters I feel we should commission a bi-annual meeting to resolve this issue and once and for all define "cover song". I nominate Ibid for President.
Taylor, the fact that you need to appeal to Matt to check your usage shows again your blatant obtuseness. Leave him out of this and fend for yourself. If you did some research, as I continually admonish you to do, you would find usage books state the addition of -ness is hardly something to be avoided. In fact, the addition of -ness makes an adjective a noun. Some grammarians do protest when too many modified adjectives replace nouns or modified nouns replace adjectives but I would hardly call one too many. To avoid the practice altogether would rob us of words like: kindness, willingness, sadness, happiness, kindheartedness, straightforwardness...et al. Also, to say that that rule should only be used when "necessary" is far to subjective which shows again your lack of forethought. So though I my be pretending, I am doing a far better job then you.
You do, however, make a fine and discerning point concerning who should be credited in a cover song. I am not going to argue about that. Writers are the ones truly being covered because they are the originators of the song, but the artist that performs it is the one most credited, which should be the case. Good point. However, (I now know more about this topic then I ever cared to) Neil was hardly a no name in 1966 when the song was written. He was signed in 1962 as a solo act. That contract didn't last and then he went to writing. However, a wikipedic offering: "There is a popular misconception that Diamond wrote and composed these songs specifically for the Pre-Fab Four. In reality, Diamond had written, composed, and recorded these songs for release himself, but the cover versions were released before his own." If Neil hadn't have performed the song himself then I would credit the Monkeys, however he did and at that point he became more then merely the author, and the song was his. So, the same way we credit Dylan with Mr. Tambourine Man, as you brilliantly point out, we credit Diamond with I'm a Believer. Much of this (dates, and whatnots) was gleaned from research. It can also be called thinking before speaking. Now you try it.
In conclusion, this is a silly feud.
It is a rare feat that something can pull me away from The Colbert Report's opening monologue. As Liz (or my first wife Darren) can confirm, it is quite difficult to garner my attention away from televised; sports, political punditry, or political comedy.
However, the two posts above did just that.
Also it is quite another, much more dangerous, endeavor to steel my attention only to then frustrate me with a boring story or unwitty anecdote (something only Darren can confirm because Liz's stories are always intriguing and her anecdotes are an 11 on the scale of hilarity).
I find it exceedingly fascinating and comical, albeit borderline frightening, that more research went into those two posts than perhaps any research paper ever produced by Darren or Taylor in high school. And because I know Darren and Taylor very well, I see no end in sight, this comments thread could very well break a world record by the time my great-grandchildren invent a cerebral computer chip implant that will allow Darren and Taylor to post retorts via cognition.
Who say's the internets are making us dumberness?
Let me just clarify one thing, preparedness was an inside joke (like the time I almost killed Owen Wilson), not an appeal for mediation or validation.
That is all. Thank you for the smiles.
Queue the backhanded compliments.
Ahhhh...let's not break up such a wonderful feud between good strangers. This is the most fun (not counting my glorious time with my wife and two adorable little boys) I have had in the last 14 months. For some odd reason the 14 months coincides with the amount of time I have been in Law School...coincidence? I think not.
We will have to agree to disagree on the modified adjective. It is my strong belief that it robs the author to really grab the attention of the reader; even for words like kindness, sadness, willingness. Let me demonstrate. Note...Before the demonstration begins let me make it clear that I am not trying to change your ways, but show you the light of better writing (I have to admit your writing is quite good).
When you say kindness the only way to present it is by using a "non-action" verb. You may call this "berzerk...a non-action verb?" a grammarian might ask. Allow be to enlighten.
#1 The boy showed his kindness towards the neo-nazi mascot by wrapping him a blanket.
Notice the non-action verb of "showed". It is non-action in this context because an author cannot vividly paint the action "showed kindness"...it's only a theoretical concept. Plus you must string on thoughts by using the words "towards" or "by" and before you know it you have a sentence of 35 words. BORING
The boy kindly wrapped the neo-nazi mascot in a warm blanket.
The sentence is more concise and the reader is able to picture in their minds a boy, warm and tender in his heart, wrapping this poor young, albeit nazi, mascot into a blanket.
#2 The prison guard had happiness in his heart from winning the block 17 talent show.
Again how can a reader picture the word "had"...too abstract for our simple minds, plus there is no action.
The prison guard happily exclaimed when he was awarded best in show for the block 17 talent show.
In my mind words like preparedness should be used sparingly...like when explaining inside jokes or speaking with a group of boy scouts about the Emergency Preparedness merit badge, and not as a modified adjective.
Conclusion: After Watergate, journalism and writing scholars in general, for the most part, have butchered the english language and the way it is taught. Probably because speed/quantity has overcome the quality we expect from our authors. It is such a lost art that I no longer listen to what writing scholars have to say. If you have a usage book that says modified adjectives should be used, I would take it with a grain of salt. I firmly believe that if today's human would pick an old book and emmulate the writing styles of the 19th century this world would be a gooder place.
Don't rob readers of vivid language, they will thank you for it.
plus et al. should only be used when the is an exaustive list. food for thought
Yes, Matt, back off. It's only your blog. I do apologize for taking up space and time on your web log for this silly squabble.....that he started.
I will happily agree to disagree. You make sound points. I was merely attacking the statement "almost never". You tossed that out a rule not as a preference. Preference arguments are more lame then this one.
Now, in the spirit of showing the light of better writing (though you too write like a stallion), here is a tip that is backed by purely by good taste and thusly preference: avoid cliche's such as "food for thought" unless, that is, you have a gun to your head or a boot to your balls. That is canned writing at it's finest. Terrible. Also, a simple spelling check. I can't even respond to your last statement because I don't know what an exaustive is nor is 'the' as a definite article the appropriate word choice there. I think you are trying to say that you think my list was inexhaustive. Et al translates to mean 'and others'. there is no reference to how many numbers. Unless, when using it in the MLA writing style and you are referencing a book written by 3 or more authors you use et al after the third. There are numbers involved there, but not with the actual definition and correct usage of et al.
1) It was supposed to read "there is an exhaustive list"
Exhaustive: with a definite end. E.g., the whole numbers between 1 and 10 are 2,3,4 et al. You were listing words with which one could attach "ness". That is potentially infinite in number. Et al. would be incorrect in that situation. et seq. may arguably have been used but a cliched etc. would have been sufficient.
I am not that saavy with MLA. It has been almost 3 years since I last used it. In law school we use a hybrid style of MLA, APA, and poop. However, my scholarly writing must be in MLA. If I have any questions, you are my man.
Maybe law school has skewed my mind but one thing I have learned is "bright line" rules almost never exist (wink). That is why we have judges. "Almost never" is always the rule; I find that ironic.
2)I assure you phrases such as "food for thought" are used as pure fecitous fun. I too become enraged when canned writing infultrates our literary world.
3)I have learned through many ironic turns of events that one should never criticize spelling when online. Each time I do it I end up spelling as or it wrong in my criticism. Go back and read your comments. See if there are any spelling errors. I am sure they are there. I raise the hand to the square and promise that I edit and proofread the crap out of my work. I take much pride in the sweat and cerebral juices which a ring out onto a piece of mine.
4) I know extend my digital hand of peace
5) Matt, your blog is now returned to you. Take care of it..I will be watching.
the digital hand is shaken, and I will add a butt slap and a "good game". But I will ever disagree with your definition of et al. "And others" does not mean and others...until 10, or whatever the end may be.
The best thing about this silliness is that yesterday's work day went by faster than Beau on his choice of stimulant.
much apologies Matt for the raping and pillaging of your web space.
Gentlemen-
Perhaps I was unclear, I hold no ill feelings towards the blog hijacking, in fact I gave it the Matt Higginson endorsement, not to be confused with the Matt Higginson guarantee, or the Matt Higginson bump.
I was not being sarcastic when I said "if nothing else I want my blog to be a haven for strangers to quarrel through the written word and snark."
I have thoroughly enjoyed this squabble and judge it to be a draw.
Word.
If I may ask, what is the hierarchy of endorsement, guarantee, and the M.H. bump? Additionally, was the endorsement a full endorsement? You know I don't expect anything else than 100%.
i know nothing myself about the bump or endorsement and my curiosity is piqued. I have, however, had first hand knowledge of the guarantee. It is soft...soft and porous.
Despite Darren's assertion, the Matt Higginson endorsement, bump, and guarantee are equal in breadth, scope, real world implication, and all-encompassingly robust compulsory power. That is to say they mean quite little outside my own sphere.
Post a Comment