What am I listening to?

[vaticanplum]

I loathe the White Stripes.

[LvJ]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

I loathe the White Stripes.

Why?

[justincredible]

Originally Posted by Reds Freak

I just picked up Brad Paisley's new album today, 5th Gear. At first listen I didn't think it was as good as his first few albums but it has definately grown on me. My favorites: "Ticks", "Online", "Letter to Me", "I'm Still a Guy", "It Did", "Better Than This", and of course the instrumentals. Ha, that's a lot of favorites...

I picked up 5th Gear as well. It is a really good album, though it isn't as good as Time Well Wasted. I still think TWW is one of the best albums I have ever heard.

I have been listening to a lot of Tool lately, getting ready for the concert at US Bank on Friday.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by Reds Freak

Well isn't it a law to love Brad Paisley if you're from West Virginia? I've got all 5 albums now too and I'd say Part II is my favorite. You definately need to go out and get 5th Gear though, it's another great one. I can't get enough of Brad, he does it all, singer, songwriter, entertainer, and he can pick it with the best of them. There aren't too many like him nowadays in country music...

I agree--Brad Paisley is an amazingly gifted all around entertainer. All of his CDs are full of great, imaginative songs, but "Part II" may be his best--there's hardly a song on it that I ever skip when playing the CD.

[Redhook]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

I loathe the White Stripes.

Yea, double why?

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by Redhook

Yea, double why?

Personal taste.

Actually, I have more specific reasons, but there's never any point in debating them with White Stripes fans because neither side will budge.

Love the Strokes to pieces, though. I think the White Stripes are grossly overrated as a rock band while the Strokes are grossly underrated as a pop band.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Personal taste.

Actually, I have more specific reasons, but there's never any point in debating them with White Stripes fans because neither side will budge.

Love the Strokes to pieces, though. I think the White Stripes are grossly overrated as a rock band while the Strokes are grossly underrated as a pop band.

I like both bands. They both have a "garage" sound to them that I really enjoy.

However, I cannot stand some of the newer "emo" bands of the variety I call "screechcore." The primary example that I can think of right now is Hawthorne Heights. I just don't like someone screaming bloody murder right in the middle of a song. And that's coming from a fan of punk music. If you can cross my threshold for loud, obnoxious music, that's saying something. As soon as I hear that, I feel as though I've suddenly become my parents.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

I loathe the White Stripes.

I couldn't agree more.

They are one tier below my hate for the Beatles.

[Betterread]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Personal taste.

Actually, I have more specific reasons, but there's never any point in debating them with White Stripes fans because neither side will budge.

Love the Strokes to pieces, though. I think the White Stripes are grossly overrated as a rock band while the Strokes are grossly underrated as a pop band.

I'm guessing your antipathy is related to their "authenticity". They channel Zeppelin and Dylana lot, they play blues licks and even blues covers pretty obviously and they try very hard to be rock-literate. I enjoy blues (favorite stuff is pre - 1960s) and the WS are not a substitute for the real thing.
What I like about them is their song-writing and Jack and Meg's natural charisma and enjoyment of music.
I don't follow current pop music as closely as I would like. I always thought the Strokes were similiar in their sound as the WS (I remember Is this It as being a good recording - although I never purchased it) with more modern influences sprinkled in (television). They also sounded more "serious": they are clearly better musicians and much better educated (which seemed to signify great potential - I though of Wire or Television. What have the Strokes evolved into in 2007 - I thought there was a backlash against them in NY. If this is true (my memory is not always reliable) was it justified by poor recordings, performances, etc., or just a bad break for the band?

[Dracodave]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

I like both bands. They both have a "garage" sound to them that I really enjoy.

However, I cannot stand some of the newer "emo" bands of the variety I call "screechcore." The primary example that I can think of right now is Hawthorne Heights. I just don't like someone screaming bloody murder right in the middle of a song. And that's coming from a fan of punk music. If you can cross my threshold for loud, obnoxious music, that's saying something. As soon as I hear that, I feel as though I've suddenly become my parents.

Scream-o, is decent if you can find a good band. Silverstein, Pre-Holding a Wolf by the ears From Autumn to Ashes, and Thursday come to mind from bands who "scream" but sound decent doing it.

I'm a fan of old school punk as well as screamo/emo and whatever else they might call it. Bands like Brand New and Taking Back Sunday might still be too pop-ish for me, but they are good at their craft and thats all that matters.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by Betterread

I'm guessing your antipathy is related to their "authenticity". They channel Zeppelin and Dylana lot, they play blues licks and even blues covers pretty obviously and they try very hard to be rock-literate. I enjoy blues (favorite stuff is pre - 1960s) and the WS are not a substitute for the real thing.
What I like about them is their song-writing and Jack and Meg's natural charisma and enjoyment of music.
I don't follow current pop music as closely as I would like. I always thought the Strokes were similiar in their sound as the WS (I remember Is this It as being a good recording - although I never purchased it) with more modern influences sprinkled in (television). They also sounded more "serious": they are clearly better musicians and much better educated (which seemed to signify great potential - I though of Wire or Television. What have the Strokes evolved into in 2007 - I thought there was a backlash against them in NY. If this is true (my memory is not always reliable) was it justified by poor recordings, performances, etc., or just a bad break for the band?

I believe that the Strokes have a strong case for being the best band of their generation if they ever care to take it. To answer your question, they're still very good: their most recent album, First Impressions of Earth, is probably their best, still very much them but a little more sophisticated. I also liked their second, Room on Fire, quite a lot, although that one wasn't quite as well received.

Ironically, for a band that started off kind of a musical renaissance in New York and was responsible for for the way that thousands of hipster kids dress all over Williamsburg and the Lower East Side, the Strokes were never that well received there; it wasn't a late backlash. There was a feeling of sour grapes, I suppose, and a great amount of jealousy among bands, a sense that they didn't deserve their worldwide success any more than other local bands around the same time. Which is so entirely wrong for a few reasons I'll get into in a minute...but it's ridiculous in New York, the sentiment toward the Strokes. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that they hate themselves for liking their music. Why would anyone hate themselves for liking something, I ask them? (besides the Reds of course) And the reasons thrown back at me always involved something of the following: they're rich, they're fashion plates, blah blah blah.

The reason this is so absurd is because the Strokes are, hands down, the hardest working band I have ever seen. Years before they were successful, I have on good authority, they were buckled down in the studio 14-18 hours at a time, bartending to pay the bills when they weren't, never sleeping, devoting their whole lives to the band. Their lead singer/songwriter is an obsessive perfectionist who doesn't happen to want to talk about music to the press as much as someone like Jack White. And I think you hear that perfectionism in their music: it's straight-up technique, chords built like something from a textbook, guitar playing and production cut like glass. And yet there's still a lot of soul in it, largely because of the quality of the songs and the lyrics, both highly underrated in my opinion. Their underlying, bittersweet portrayal of youth in particular is done as well as about anybody's ever done it. There's been attention to the way they dress, no doubt, in part because of their dream of creating a perfect band. They always had that in mind, but it was always secondary to the music, and they just wanted to do those extra things, never talk about them. But that kind of thing is what the press has picked up on and asked them about, and it's why people hate them even as they admit that they like listening to their songs. They've been victimized by their own thoroughness and earnestness, in a sense, and of their own overwhelming devotion to their work. Suffice it to say that 95% of bands in New York do not carry this attitude toward their work. Maybe that's why they resent the Strokes.

As live performers, they're hit or miss -- and yes, that may be one thing that's hurt them too, as you allude to. They have the same problem in concert as they do with the press: they're not there for show. They're not natural performers for the most part; they like to play music. Sometimes you'll catch them on an emotional, electric night, but because they'll never force or create emotion, sometimes you won't. At those times, the music is still, due to the solidness of their technique, well worth hearing, but of course not everybody goes to concerts for the music (and I don't say that entirely disparagingly).

I think the Strokes will be fine though. In fact, I'd venture to say that they'll blossom and grow up much better without the heat of the press and expectation on them. Their music is still quite lauded by critics and, more importantly, they have that work ethic and rock-solid musical foundation to hold them up. They will continue to be a good band -- and a more influential one than most will admit -- for as long as they want to be.

[LvJ]

First Impressions of Earth was a huge step backward from "Is this It" and even "Room on Fire" for the Strokes in my opinion. I still believe they have more in them, but they need to shy away from whatever they were thinking on that last album.

[OldRightHander]

For about the 100th time during this thread, the thought "I have no idea who they're talking about" just crossed my mind.

[The Baumer]

I hear the new Nat King Cole is splendid.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

I like both bands. They both have a "garage" sound to them that I really enjoy.

However, I cannot stand some of the newer "emo" bands of the variety I call "screechcore." The primary example that I can think of right now is Hawthorne Heights. I just don't like someone screaming bloody murder right in the middle of a song. And that's coming from a fan of punk music. If you can cross my threshold for loud, obnoxious music, that's saying something. As soon as I hear that, I feel as though I've suddenly become my parents.

Many of those bands sound like little kids imitating Cookie Monster. Punk is fine if it's from the heart. When you start affecting a Muppet voice or a cockney accent, you're just a poseur.