What MUSIC are you listening to? ARCHIVE

mjl1783 wrote:

Wooten can go a little overboard sometimes, but he is tasteful. This isn't a bass shredding album, it's just laid-back Clinton style shit. His lyrics are awful, I'll give you that.

A little of Claypool goes a long way, and he's nowhere near as good if we're talking straight-up technique. I know a lot of people who shit their pants at the sight of someone slapping 30,000 muted notes in a row through a synth pedal, but I can only take a little of it before I get bored. Back in the Seas/Punchbowl days, when he was playing the 6 string and doing his tapping stuff, he was pretty impressive. Then he got into the "jam" scene, and now it's all this aimless noodly crap coming from him. "The Big Eyeball in the Sky" is a great tune though.

Wooten is defintely an amazing player, better then Claypool, sure. But Claypool is probably more unique... especially when he's focused. I could see how his jam band stuff would be irritating, I have no time for that scene personally.

I guess what I mean by Wooten having no taste is that the one album of his I have is fascinating due to his virtuosity but the songs are so cheesy that it's only worth a listen or two, not much more. He is a great player and he can be pretty groovy, not many people can stand next to him in that style...

Except Jonas Hellborg, he's my favorite bassist by far. And Edgar Meyer on stand-up... he blows me away still to this day. Anyone who wins a fiddle championship on a double bass scares the shit out of me. His intonation is awesome.

But Claypool is probably more unique... especially when he's focused. I could see how his jam band stuff would be irritating, I have no time for that scene personally.

Don't get me wrong, Claypool can play, or at least he really could at one time. "Is it Luck?" is one of the hardest things I've ever seen for bass. I'll be able to play "Sinister Minister" note-for-note before I can play that one. But the last few years, he's gone waaaaay overboard with the percussive qualities of the instrument.

Meyer is pretty crazy. I bought one of those Stagg electric uprights last summer, and I gained a whole new respect for upright players. It's a lot harder to play even the simplest things on an upright.

Listening to Les Claypool play bass is about like listening to a bowl of spaghetti.

The Monks Black Monk Time - Wow, pretty good 60s punk. I wonder why you don't hear that much about them.

You do if you listen to The Fall. They've covered a couple of Monks songs and there's a track called "Black Monk Theme" that's awful Monks-ish.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Listening to Les Claypool play bass is about like listening to a bowl of spaghetti.


You do if you listen to The Fall.

Funny because listening to the Fall is kind of like listening to someone throw all their dishes down the stairs... it's their all right, but man where is the aesthetic appeal?

Anti-msucianship for the sake of itself is the hallmark of punk... cool ideas but awfull playing. The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage. They're just afraid of having a musical vocabluary of more then four words.

Funny because listening to the Fall is kind of like listening to someone throw all their dishes down the stairs
They're just afraid of having a musical vocabluary of more then four words.


"The Fall don't play fancy music"- Mark E. Smith

"If your band can't turn it out like a garage band, then it's time to hang it up"- Mark E. Smith

One Fall song has got pretty famous in the UK. It is Touch Sensitive. It was on an advert but now it is the go to song if you have a feature on say hyperactive kids. Great song.

JonJacob wrote:

Funny because listening to the Fall is kind of like listening to someone throw all their dishes down the stairs... it's their all right, but man where is the aesthetic appeal?

That's cool that you don't admire The Fall. But since they have been my favorite band for 20 years now I had to say something. Because a lot of bands have come and gone in my life but the Fall have had a longevity for me that is largely unparalleled. So, I do strongly feel that there IS something of quality in this highly overlooked "non-supergroup".

Anti-msucianship for the sake of itself is the hallmark of punk... cool ideas but awfull playing. The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

I can't share this point of view. No offense, but sounds like a bunch of musician's musician elitist crap.
Good songwriting and having a distinctive sound is always going to win over "technically proficient" music or guitar wanking for me. Musicianship doesn't matter if the material is fucking boring. I don't care how well someone plays a shit song.

They're just afraid of having a musical vocabluary of more then four words.

Nobody out there sounds remotely like the Fall that aren't trying. Their catalogue of songs is actually quite diverse and the tone or style tends to shift or evolve on each record. And music aside, Mark E. Smith is a totally brilliant lyricist and delivery-man to boot. Practically inimitable in style and content. Truly legendary in my opinion!

Hex Sinister wrote:

JonJacob wrote:

Anti-msucianship for the sake of itself is the hallmark of punk... cool ideas but awfull playing. The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

I can't share this point of view. No offense, but sounds like a bunch of musician's musician elitist crap.
Good songwriting and having a distinctive sound is always going to win over "technically proficient" music or guitar wanking for me. Musicianship doesn't matter if the material is fucking boring. I don't care how well someone plays a shit song.

That's, uh, exactly the opposite of what he said. Bold for emphasis.

The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

Just unclench about The Fall and realize he's got a strong point. Pretend we're talking about Sid Vicious or something. If you can't play well enough to do your material justice, you just suck. Go get a job.

(spoken as a non-musician, who has a job. And no opinion about The Fall in particular, but strong agreement about punk's "bad-on-purpose" bullshit.)

Maybe I'm completely missing the point JJ was making and am just totally confused now. I think the way that was phrased is causing me the confusion. God I need a nap.

That's cool that you don't admire The Fall. But since they have been my favorite band for 20 years now I had to say something. Because a lot of bands have come and gone in my life but the Fall have had a longevity for me that is largely unparalleled. So, I do strongly feel that there IS something of quality in this highly overlooked "non-supergroup".

I've only been into The Fall for about 8 years, but when I came to them- after trying to get into them for years and years- something finally clicked and I suddenly "got" The Fall.

Part of it was because I was so burned out on just about all music. Nothing sound new and fresh, nothing sounded daring and really creative anymore.

In The Fall, you've got a band that is so outrageously singular and defiant of all other music. Yes, The Fall is in a sense anti-everything. And the fact that for 30 years they've released an incredibly consistent body of work with probably the most amazing combination of absurdity, surrealism, intellect, and raw rock n' roll. There's an albatross-like quality of awkwardness to The Fall that is really rather fearless- one of my favorite Fall moments is from a live show and the announcer says all this fist-pumping rock n' roll stuff to introduce they band...and they come on with a kazoo solo.

If you can't play well enough to do your material justice, you just suck. Go get a job.

Well, when The Ramones came out, everybody assumed that they were untalented hacks playing one chord. You _still_ hear that. But if you see END OF THE CENTURY in particular, you really see how much deliberate artistry was a part of The Ramones. Johnny Ramone had a very distinct vision and statement about rock n' roll, and it comes blazing through their entire career. "Bad on purpose"? Is "Rock n' Roll High School" bad on purpose or is it just stripped down to the core of what rock n' roll is supposed to be?

You hear the same crap about the New York Dolls, but come to find out those guys- particularly Johnny Thunders- were great songwriters and musicians. Just because they were coming at from the gutter rather than some uptown music school doesn't make their music any less great or sophisticated.

It strikes me that this is kind of like the argument a lot of people have against modern art. Anybody can look at a Rembrandt and recognize the art and talent because he was technically proficient in the extreme. But a lot of people will look at a Rothko or Pollock and think "crap" and cite how the Rothko is just a square of paint or the Pollock is just a bunch of paint splatters. The Rothko and the Pollock are every bit as significant and artistic, but the technique to get there is different and what is expressed is different. It's the same thing when a Joe Satriani fan throws off on punk- who's being unsophisticated there?