The newest wave of American rock bands are about as interesting as celery soup ???

knobbles

Originally posted by tibor


there's shedloads of fantastic american rock bands aboot, just not mainstream ones. some of them do eventually get heard over this side of the pond, but not too often.
see : pinback, modest mouse, fugazi, dismemberment plan, les savy fav, at the drive-in, trail of the dead, grandaddy, get up kids, fantomas, don caballero, eels... i'm sure yo've gotten the point by now so i'll stop.

i know, america will always produce great rock music but i was
really just looking at those that seem to be making a big impact
(selling). the bands i mentioned are today's kings and they just
aren't a patch on the kings of yester-decade.
but as atonal said it's because these bands aren't as MTV friendly
and so the unexposed kids are only being handed the kids menu.

(excluding the not so "rock" grandaddy and eels)
ATDI and Trail Of Dead are great bands
Dismem Plan & Don Cab are the only other ones i'm familiar
with - didn't interest me as much but i'd choose their
fuked-up-rock and instrumental-rock over today's "kings" any time.

I don't go fishing for much rock but others
that have impressed me that last year or two
are Deftones(White Pony-class) and A Perfect Circle

knobbles

Originally posted by o sleep


there's some great music coming out from america at the moment, some of it retro (the strokes, jim o'rourke, etc) and some not so retro (yo la tengo, low, sparklehorse etc etc), and of course there's some **** music coming out too. generalising is bad. and pointless too.

well if we're movin away from rock to the broader american scene, of course there's some great music....and much more
to offer than ireland and uk.
(i must check out this low album that has you all buzzin)

atonal

Originally posted by knobbles


(i must check out this low album that has you all buzzin)

Really you think it is that great? Things We Lost In The Fire? Right? I thought it a bit dull... certainly it is well done but really on an emotional impact scale it did nothing for me. Very Malkmus which is not a bad thing... it was highly reccomended by a friend...I did not love it... . Different taste I suppose... For The Birds was a much better album, Malkmus's album was better too in my opinion.

o sleep

Originally posted by atonal


Really you think it is that great? Things We Lost In The Fire? Right? I thought it a bit dull... certainly it is well done but really on an emotional impact scale it did nothing for me. Very Malkmus which is not a bad thing... it was highly reccomended by a friend...I did not love it... . Different taste I suppose... For The Birds was a much better album, Malkmus's album was better too in my opinion.

i love that low album!! i bought it months (and months?) ago, and i'm still listening to it (in fact it's in my walkman right now as we speak), but you're right it's not to everyone's taste and there's two dud tracks on it (the second one and perhaps the second from last). i got alot of my friends into it and they love it too, but some other people really don't like it. as you said, i guess it's all a matter of taste.

as for stephen malkmus' album, i wasn't all that impressed. yeah, it was good, but i was expecting so much more. i don't think you can compare low to malkmus, they're two very different bands (although they are coming from the same scene, i guess).

and i agree with you on the frames for the birds: great album. if you like the first song, go down to road and get any of the rachel's albums, especially "music for egon Schiele(sp?)" (which is apparently who the song santa maria is about too).

oh, knobbles: i think pearl (on sunday morning) has the Low album, request a song and see what you think.

atonal

Originally posted by o sleep


. if you like the first song, go down to road and get any of the rachel's albums, especially "music for egon Schiele(sp?)" (which is apparently who the song santa maria is about too).

Will look into it.

Things We Lost in The Fire and For The Birds share the same producer which I think gives them a similar quality. Steve Albini definitely did something special for the frames there while I think all their albums are class For The Birds stands apart.

I think I prefer Malkmus's album to Low for the more narrative storytelling quality of the songs... and a simple vocals prefrence. There are a few bum tracks that get the skip everytime.

Exactly why I really did not love the low album is a mystery to me. I think it is good and all but i have had it for a few weeks and am just not left with the desire to play it over and over... which reminds me I have to give it back to its owner. I lent her For The Birds she lent me Low... I think we both agreed to disagree on music from now on.

seamus

Originally posted by o sleep


that's exactly what people said to me in 1991 when i was listening to nirvana and (shame! shame!) pearl jam. the scene was crap and full of a bunch of pointless retro rock bands. and guess what? they were wrong. apart from pearl jam (listening back to the lyrics of 'alive' and i just cringe).

there's some great music coming out from america at the moment, some of it retro (the strokes, jim o'rourke, etc) and some not so retro (yo la tengo, low, sparklehorse etc etc), and of course there's some **** music coming out too. generalising is bad. and pointless too.

Got there well before me. Music culture moves in waves. The two main genres (pop, rock) tend to fight eachother out every 5 years or so, and one becomes prevalent over the other for a while. Then the other evolves and gains popularity and strength. Bears a resemblance to a biological theory know as evolution. Funny thing is, every time the rock genre becomes the popular one, most of those people who moaned about pop music being everywhere start complaining about how this new rock isn't as good as the old one. Frankly, I couldn't give a flying fúck what you think of new rock bands, but imo, having even the worst rock band playing all the time on MTV is infinitely more enjoyable than having Britney or one of the other manufactured tripe bands coming out of your ears.

Also, just as an OT, I can reall yonly enjoy music if it has passion. Pop music just bores the arse off of me. But most bands who play insturments and write songs tend to put some sort of energy into their songs, which is why I personally enjoy it - it brings out the energy in me. Some guy said there recently, that when rock music angst-style becomes popular (Korn, Staind, Sum 41, Limp Bizkit, etc etc etc et......) it shows there's something wrong with the world, ie there's a majority of angry people. When pop music is popular, people seem to be happier and less suspicious. I agree. Draw your own conclusions, but violent crimes and agressiveness are on a massive increase over the past few years (while pop music is in fashion), and personally I feel very relaxed and 'cleansed' after a good metal gig. (whoa! got too involved in that post)

playground

Playground Psychotic

Whoever said that young people don't really know where to find other music apart from what MTV is offering was right. Unless you have a really cool friend with Domino's back catalogue or friends in the States, it's kind of hard to keep up with stuff or even learn about new 'good' bands.
For the record, and without preaching, www.pitchforkmedia.com is really a great source, if a bit obscure sometimes. For American rock, CMJ is great and you can get the magazine in Tower.
American bands? Dismemberment Plan, Death Cab For Cutie, Bright Eyes (and his new band Desaparecidos),...

Canadian Rugger

May I please point out that both Nickelback and Sum41 are Canadian bands. Nickelback is a good rock band, are good live, and do not sound like those crappy American bands (ie. Creed) which rule the airwaves. Sum41 has one good song, are crappy live, and sound predictable.

Cheers.