Grammys

[il Padrino Ute]

Am I the only one here who not only didn't watch the Grammys, but had no idea that it was the Grammy time of year?

I see the Grammys as nothing different than any other awards show. It's just a bunch of shallow people congratulating themselves. Boring.

[creekster]

Am I the only one here who not only didn't watch the Grammys, but had no idea that it was the Grammy time of year?

I see the Grammys as nothing different than any other awards show. It's just a bunch of shallow people congratulating themselves. Boring.

I didn't watch it either (I take it you have shied away from the Austen thread?) but lack of knowledge has never stopped me from posting. You don't get this many posts in just a few months by worrying about whether you know what you're taling about, you should know that.

[il Padrino Ute]

I didn't watch it either (I take it you have shied away from the Austen thread?) but lack of knowledge has never stopped me from posting. You don't get this many posts in just a few months by worrying about whether you know what you're taling about, you should know that.

Of course I know that. Ignorance never stopped me from posting anything.

And I have added one post to the Austen thread.

[Surfah]

Allison Kraus and Robert Plant won Album of the Year? Yikes.

[MarkGrace]

We just have different ears. I went back and re-read and you thought that Coldplay was trying to make Joshua Tree, the Bends, Ok-Computer over and over. To me, not only does Coldplay sound nothing like those, none of those sound a thing like one another.

I wasn't suggesting that those three albums sound alike, because they don't. But my general impression of Coldplay is that they have been mining sounds from those three albums for about a decade now. For example, Yellow sounds like it could have been pulled right off of The Bends. Viva La Vida just sounds like a cheesy U2 re-creation. This is what a music critic from the NYTimes said about them:

Coldplay could easily be summed up as Radiohead minus Radiohead's beat, dissonance or arty subterfuge.

A quote from Martin:

COLDPLAY frontman CHRIS MARTIN has confessed to something musicologists and fans alike have thought for years - the rockers borrow heavily from RADIOHEAD. During a free Coldplay show in London on Monday night (16Jun08), frontman Chris Martin went so far as to joke about the fact, suggesting to fans that his band's God Put a Smile on Your Face sounded an awful lot like Radiohead's 2+2=5. He then quipped, "Sorry, we shouldn't be talking about plagiarism. Ignore that!" It isn't the first time Martin has commented on Coldplay's links to their fellow British stadium rockers. In a new Rolling Stone magazine article, the singer says, "Sometimes I feel like they (Radiohead) cleared a path with a machete, and we came afterward and put up a strip mall. "I would still give my left ball to write anything as good as (beloved Radiohead album) OK Computer."

Of course Martin is trying to be humble, but I also happen to think he's right. I've lost track of the number of times Coldplay has been called "Radiohead-lite," "diet Radiohead," "watered down Radiohead," or something of the sort. And I know that just because it's written doesn't mean it's true, but personally, I hear it, and I think many others do as well.

I don't think you answered three, but my answer is virtually never. To me, thinking about the 20th century in pop music (beginning after the big band and jazz eras which I am hopelessly ignorant as to) I can't think of anyone who did something new and enduring beyond Buddy Holly/Little Richard, The Beatles and Bob Dylan.

No, I didn't really answer #3, but I mentioned what I expected out of great bands, and it relates to #3. To give a straight answer, I would agree with "virtually never." Even with some of your examples I think I would argue that at the beginning they were in large part regurgitating their influences. For examples, The Beatles were famously influenced by Buddy Holly and the The Crickets. Bob Dylan's early was clearly playing off of Woodie Guthrie. However, at some point they captured a sound that became "theirs."

Or, to use more modern examples, look at U2 and Radiohead. Early U2 records sound much like Joy Division or other prominent post-punk acts. But they eventually progressed into a sound that is unmistakably U2. Radiohead's Pablo Honey in a way doesn't even sound much like Radiohead, and sounds more like a convergence of Pixies, classic U2, and Sonic Youth. But along the way they also developed a sound that became quintessentially Radiohead. Each has a sound so identifiable that when someone else is playing off of it, it is noticeable and you think of them.

With Coldplay, I just don't hear a "Coldplay" sound. When I think of their sound, I just hear someone else. There's nothing wrong with having a sound that is strongly influences by someone else, but I think the great bands eventually come up with a sound that's all their own.

[Gidget]

Allison Kraus and Robert Plant won Album of the Year? Yikes.

Don't hate on Allison Krauss. Ever.

[cougjunkie]

Don't hate on Allison Krauss. Ever.

You say it best when you say nothing at all.

[il Padrino Ute]

Don't hate on Allison Krauss. Ever.

Is it ok if I hate Def Leppard?

[Gidget]

Is it ok if I hate Def Leppard?

Yes.

[UtahDan]

I wasn't suggesting that those three albums sound alike, because they don't. But my general impression of Coldplay is that they have been mining sounds from those three albums for about a decade now. For example, Yellow sounds like it could have been pulled right off of The Bends. Viva La Vida just sounds like a cheesy U2 re-creation.

I should note that this is one of my favorite threads in a long time. I don't see the U2 comparison. I really don't. Radiohead (at least Bends vintage), okay, I do see that. To me what is unique and interesting about Coldplay is Chris Martin's voice. I don't think there is anyone else who sounds like him or who delivers it in quite the same way. I also like how Coldplay uses piano as a percussion instrument (which is obviously what it is in a rock and roll context). Yes, everyone it seems is doing it now but I remember hearing Trouble for the first time and thinking it was cool to hear a contemporary piano song again. Of course, Keane and others come along and do the same; Ben Folds and the like.

I can agree that it would be interesting to seem them branch out into different things. I just don't want to see them lose what is interesting about them in the process. So many bands go on to sacrifice melody, song structure and turn out stuff that is 8 minutes long. One example of a band who I think transitions very well is Wilco. I remember hearing Handshake drugs for the first time and thinking how different it was for them. At the same time it is an example of what I hate: the noisy three minutes at the end where he beats the shit out of his guitar through a crunch box. But by and large they change their sound but still write songs.

No, I didn't really answer #3, but I mentioned what I expected out of great bands, and it relates to #3. To give a straight answer, I would agree with "virtually never." Even with some of your examples I think I would argue that at the beginning they were in large part regurgitating their influences. For examples, The Beatles were famously influenced by Buddy Holly and the The Crickets. Bob Dylan's early was clearly playing off of Woodie Guthrie. However, at some point they captured a sound that became "theirs."

Right, because they combine influences in a way that is unique. I guess I was just highlighting that everyone is the sum of their influence and only a few really break over into being something new. The Beatles, for example, in their first album, and arguably first three, are an early rock era band. But by Help, we are hearing things like Yesterday, Ticket to Ride and, of course, Help! which didn't really sound like anything else. But again it isn't all about sound. Dylan is a take off from Guthrie only in the sense that they are both folk singers. Dylan endures because he was a poet and wrote beautiful melodies (though he couldn't sing them; To Make You Feel My Love and Forever Young for example are almost haunting vibrating off the right vocal chords).

I know I am retreading the same ground by now, I'm still just saying that if you evolve in a way where you have a cool sound but not the elements that make for a cool song, that just isn't for me. I think you can have both, IOW.

Or, to use more modern examples, look at U2 and Radiohead. Early U2 records sound much like Joy Division or other prominent post-punk acts. But they eventually progressed into a sound that is unmistakably U2. Radiohead's Pablo Honey in a way doesn't even sound much like Radiohead, and sounds more like a convergence of Pixies, classic U2, and Sonic Youth. But along the way they also developed a sound that became quintessentially Radiohead. Each has a sound so identifiable that when someone else is playing off of it, it is noticeable and you think of them.

With Coldplay, I just don't hear a "Coldplay" sound. When I think of their sound, I just hear someone else. There's nothing wrong with having a sound that is strongly influences by someone else, but I think the great bands eventually come up with a sound that's all their own.

I think that is fair comment. Back to the Beatles, one of the most distinctive and underrated things about them was the guitar licks of George Harrison. They are very diverse, but you always know who you are hearing. On the other hand, it is always easy to tell you are hearing Edge because he is playing very, very similar, though generally pleasing, licks over and over. Not everyone can be George Harrison. I do understand the desire to see them try, I'm just not so hard on them when they don't.

[TripletDaddy]

I like Viva la Vida, but you don't think it sounds like a U2 song? Even the voice a little bit?

what happened to keane? the first disc was cool, then they went into the toilet.

Speaking of piano, does everyone remember that 80s alt group called The Origin? They were very popular in Utah on KJQ. Local San Diego band with songs like Music to My Ears, November Days, Everyone Needs Love, and Growing Old. I still have that CD and that piano intro to Growing Old still gets me every time. It is too bad these guys lost their way....by the time they released their second disc, Bend, they had missed the boat entirely. But that first disc is still one of my fave 80s discs.

[youtube]dGR84pp9ah8[/youtube]

interesting tidbit for all your Origin fans out there....the lead singer, Michael Andrews, tooled around for a bit and has played here and there with the likes of Brendan Benson and MarkGrace's favorite artist, Jason Mraz.....but he also has done some movie scoring. His most famous piece is something many of you, or at least your teenage kids are familiar with......the haunting re-make of the Tears for Fears classic, Mad World. It was originally on the Donnie Darko soundtrack, then was re-worked and used in the commercial for the Gears of War video game. A very cool version of the song.

[youtube]jzn9jbwuobc[/youtube]

[creekster]

I think that is fair comment. Back to the Beatles, one of the most distinctive and underrated things about them was the guitar licks of George Harrison. They are very diverse, but you always know who you are hearing. On the other hand, it is always easy to tell you are hearing Edge because he is playing very, very similar, though generally pleasing, licks over and over. Not everyone can be George Harrison. I do understand the desire to see them try, I'm just not so hard on them when they don't.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that George Harrison is disticntive in his difference? What do you define as a "lick?" Are you including the tracks when Harrison was seized with self-doubt and so George martin and the boys had others play the guitar parts?

It seems ot me you are confusing the music (the part that is being played) with the style of guitar. Edge's style is very distinctive. You can listen to a part and regardless of the song, you can tell it is hiim becasue his style is so distcint. BB King is like this. Hendrix was like that. I do nto think Geroge harrison is like that, not at all. OTOH, Harrison had some great 'licks' to play, and he played them, but they were, for the most part written by Lennon or McCartney.

[il Padrino Ute]

I like Viva la Vida, but you don't think it sounds like a U2 song? Even the voice a little bit?

what happened to keane? the first disc was cool, then they went into the toilet.

Speaking of piano, does everyone remember that 80s alt group called The Origin? They were very popular in Utah on KJQ. Local San Diego band with songs like Music to My Ears, November Days, Everyone Needs Love, and Growing Old. I still have that CD and that piano intro to Growing Old still gets me every time. It is too bad these guys lost their way....by the time they released their second disc, Bend, they had missed the boat entirely. But that first disc is still one of my fave 80s discs.

[youtube]dGR84pp9ah8[/youtube]

interesting tidbit for all your Origin fans out there....the lead singer, Michael Andrews, tooled around for a bit and has played here and there with the likes of Brendan Benson and MarkGrace's favorite artist, Jason Mraz.....but he also has done some movie scoring. His most famous piece is something many of you, or at least your teenage kids are familiar with......the haunting re-make of the Tears for Fears classic, Mad World. It was originally on the Donnie Darko soundtrack, then was re-worked and used in the commercial for the Gears of War video game. A very cool version of the song.

[youtube]jzn9jbwuobc[/youtube]

I really liked The Origin; however the cover of Mad World is an abomination. I can no longer like The Origin now that I know the lead singer ruined TFF's great song.

[TripletDaddy]

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that George Harrison is disticntive in his difference? What do you define as a "lick?" Are you including the tracks when Harrison was seized with self-doubt and so George martin and the boys had others play the guitar parts?

It seems ot me you are confusing the music (the part that is being played) with the style of guitar. Edge's style is very distinctive. You can listen to a part and regardless of the song, you can tell it is hiim becasue his style is so distcint. BB King is like this. Hendrix was like that. I do nto think Geroge harrison is like that, not at all. OTOH, Harrison had some great 'licks' to play, and he played them, but they were, for the most part written by Lennon or McCartney.

If someone asked me to give them an example of quintessential Edge guitar, I think I would go with the lengthy intro to "Where the Streets Have No Name." I find that much of his distinct work revolves around that particular sound. However, it seems that examples of that sound are rare in their pre-Joshua Tree catalogue.

Focusing on that "WTSHNN" style....how is he doing that? Is it a combination of strum pattern and effects pedal? I only tool around on guitar, but can you replicate that Edge sound? It would seem that his style would be easier to replicate because he is known primarily as a strummer. Compared to maybe a Hendrix, who is known more for his creativity....solos, noodling, etc.. does my question make any sense here?

[UtahDan]

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that George Harrison is disticntive in his difference? What do you define as a "lick?" Are you including the tracks when Harrison was seized with self-doubt and so George martin and the boys had others play the guitar parts?

It seems ot me you are confusing the music (the part that is being played) with the style of guitar. Edge's style is very distinctive. You can listen to a part and regardless of the song, you can tell it is hiim becasue his style is so distcint. BB King is like this. Hendrix was like that. I do nto think Geroge harrison is like that, not at all. OTOH, Harrison had some great 'licks' to play, and he played them, but they were, for the most part written by Lennon or McCartney.

When I say lick I'm talking about the distinctive phrases he played in so many of the memorable songs. It has always been my understanding Harrison added those.

Hendrix was a virtuoso. If you are saying that he didn't have that many licks to play, I agree. He was Liszt rather than Beethoven. I have always been more impressed with Hendrix's virtuosity than I guess what you would call "the music." King is a bit different because what he does/did is more improvisational. Maybe Hendrix was too and I just don't appreciate it. I have always thought dying was the best career move he ever made.

Anyway, when I am talking about Edge I am assume that he writes the licks (the music) and to me they are pleasing and very similar to one another.