Page 1 of 2
#1
I'm listening to White Crosses and I kind of want to hurt Butch Vig. But blah blah blah the album is the epitome of a punk band or former punk band, based on your view, of continuing to make catchy music but losing their edge.

A lot of people argue saying, people change, bands change, hows the music not going to change? Some see that as progression, others as digression.

Does nostalgia and emotional connection to certain albums, periods of time, and etc. influence on how we feel about future musical endeavors by our favorite artists?

As I look through my Music library I see so many bands that started as punk bands, some have received the "sell out" tag...lets avoid that term for the sake of this thread.

Others shifted in sound to unimaginable heights

Some always danced on the line of melody and intensity

My questions to all you bastards:
Where is your line?
When does a band go too far, to the point they lose your respect and/or ear as a fan?
Do you feel bands use artistic expression and "GROWTH" as an excuse to make pop songs?

Also you can use this thread to say your good-bye's to bands such as Against Me, AFI, and so forth and so on.
Originally posted by J_Dizzle
THAAAANK YOU GoodCharloteSux is god
#2
First band that comes to my mind is The Clash.......I hate Cut the Crap, I still admire and love The Clash
Second band is The Ramones.........I don´t like this 80s disco shit they made

Generally I dislike it when bands simply sound overproduced, for example Anti-Flag recently sounded like that. Furthermore it´s awful when lyrics that used to be good become mass-compatible while the music becomes a wall of barréchords without any heart
#3
The one example that always springs to mind of a band that sounds completely different now from when they started, but I still enjoy immensely, is Subhumans. Internal Riot has almost no similarities to their first 4 EPs, but it's still quality. It was a progression or a digression, as you say, but a lateral move to something new that's also good.

The problem with most bands that change completely is they alienate their early fans by making music that they probably aren't going to like. Either that, or it's as Lavazza says... Their music is just perpetuating its own existence and no longer has any meaning or heart behind it.

EDIT: Since you mentioned Against Me! I'll give my opinion on them: They moved pretty far away from Reinventing Axl Rose, with Searching for a Former Clarity, but it was still good. Then they moved even farther away with New Wave, and it was awful. I still have respect for them as musicians, ever since they played a tour of small venues for ~$10/show like a year ago.
Last edited by RockThe40oz at Jun 9, 2010,
#4
I'll avoid getting into the White Crosses debate, as I can't really make sense of my opinion on the album, but in terms of bands progressing, I think Propagandhi has had an almost constantly progressing career. Their songwriting, musicianship, and overall sound get better and better with every album and I'm very curious to see if they can top "Supporting Cate"....
#5
I think it's too much to ask for a band to put out multiple albums that sound the same. It's also an absurd thought that bands would actually WANT to do this. I don't wear the same clothes I did when I was 14, so I don't think it's fair to expect a band to sound the same for their entire career. Whether or not you like the band's direction, you have to agree that making music they like should be their priority.

I knew you would mention AFI, and I know even talking about them here paints a target on my head for unknown reasons, but that's a prime example of a band who (also through the "help" of Butch Vig) changed immensely over the years into an overproduced pop outfit. Apparently it's what they want though, so I don't think I'm in a position to tell them to fuck off because of it.
Quote by emoboy027
Is fingering an emo chick that likes yoy and that has fallen in love with you is it wrong to you to finger her during lunch outside in front of everyone at the high school? would you not care or lol even wish it was you?

Youztoobz
MIDI Magicalness!
#6
Butch Vig had a period of time in the late 80s, early 90s where all he did was produce solid gold. The last good thing he did was Sing the Sorrow, hopefully the new Foo Fighters album is as good as it should be, or I will lose all faith in him.

Green Day lost me on their last album. I went with them on American Idiot, feeling that such a move was maybe necessary to revive their career, but after that they've lost me. Billie Joe annoys the shit out of me every time he talks now, and they've become so self righteous it just infuriates me.

I like Johnny Rotten, I love the Sex Pistols, but could never get into PiL. It just doesn't grab me at all.

To quantify the line is more difficult.

When a band goes out of their comfort zone to try something new, and gains new fans, that doesn't bother me. When a band decides to completely change and don't think of what this might do to their base, that pisses me off. AFI DU and beyond is about as good an example as possible.
#7
I thought 21st Century Breakdown was good (although that's rather irrelevant to the topic of punk).

I think As the Eternal Cowboy was Against Me!'s peak before wandering off into bland rock music. I used to be upset about them selling out, but whatever.

I never got into AFI. What I've heard of their old music seemed pretty boring to me, so I don't understand people who whine about the new stuff, but, ya know, whatever.

I think change is necessary for any artist, though. No one wants to keep doing the same thing, and people's tastes will inevitably change. I think that's just something fans have to deal with. I mean, Bob Dylan pissed people off when he started playing with electric guitars, and I'm sure Joy Division pissed people off when they started playing slower and using synths.

And I don't think a more pop-oriented sound is a bad thing, as long as it's done well. I think Husker Du's later, more melodic albums are better than their early hardcore stuff. I'm sure they pissed off a lot of people too. But I think sometimes as people grow they do start to embrace a more pop oriented sound. I mean, three years ago I was listening to Crass and Dead Kennedys all day every day, but now I just wanna listen to The Smiths and R.E.M. all the god damn time.

I don't think I can draw a line and say what's good and what's bad. Sometimes bands continue getting better, and sometimes they can never top their debut. Band's change, and I think it's rare for a band to continue to release flawless albums, or at least albums that please everybody. Obviously there are people out there who love what Against Me! is doing now. I'm not one of them, but I'm past the point in my life where I actually care enough to bitch about it. Who am I to say what direction is good and which is bad?
#8
Quote by iwannabesedated
When a band decides to completely change and don't think of what this might do to their base, that pisses me off.

So what should they do if they want to change their style completely? What if they're no longer interested in playing the style they're recognized for? Should they just suck it up and keep playing the same old stuff half-heartedly? Should they disband? Should they release new music with a different name? (Actually I think the latter is a pretty good solution.)

I don't like any of the bands uguise are talking about, so I can't relate to this thread very much. Although I used to like Green Day. I didn't get into them (or music in general) until American Idiot, so I never felt "betrayed" by them or anything. But I don't like their newest album and they kinda have lame self-righteous singer-songwriter thing goin' on now, which is even lamer than the lame arena rock thing they had goin' on during AI.

But I think they had every right to change their music, image, etc. Sure, it might be a little disappointing for the fans, but it's only entertainment. If you get really upset by somebody making music you don't care for, you prolly need to get your priorities in order. The fans can get over it. If the band feels they would be more fulfilled making a different kind of music, then by all means they should do it.

I also think it's not necessarily bad for a band to change its "values" or whatever you wanna call them. People change their mind about stuff all the time. Tom Gabel used to be an anarchist and now he isn't, right? So what? If you only like music written by anarchists, don't listen to Against Me! anymore. No need to have a tantrum over it. Respect his right to his own opinions and whatnot.

We usually don't really know a band's motives for changing. Anti-Flag seems to have contradicted the "Underground Network" crap they used to talk about, but we don't know if they hopped onto a major label so they could be rawk stars or if they sincerely wanted to get their stupid vague message out to a bigger audience. So don't be so judgmental.

Sometimes people accuse bands of selling out when they never bought in in the first place. For example, it doesn't seem like Green Day ever really bought into the anti-major-label thing. If ya don't like a band becuz they're on MTV that's fine, but you can't necessarily call them sellouts.

I can't even imagine that a band would totally "sell out." If someone were really willing to abandon his or her integrity for $$$ and bitches and a place in the top 40, he or she probably never had that much integrity to begin with.

To answer the questions more directly:

Where is your line?

I don't have a line. I have a bunch of zigzags in my music taste that I can't even keep track of.

When does a band go too far, to the point they lose your respect and/or ear as a fan?

I lose them when their music gets hackneyed. This can be because of a stylistic change or a lack thereof. Their ideals and attitudes can tie in with this, but I try to keep that stuff independent from the music. If a band has philosophies I agree with that's cool, but it usually doesn't make or break them for me. No single aspect of them or their music does.

Do you feel bands use artistic expression and "GROWTH" as an excuse to make pop songs?

Sometimes, yeah. I don't think they should be making excuses. If they wanna make pop songs they should go for it. If they're making excuses, they must be ashamed and they shouldn't be.

Joy Division evidently sucked at music in the beginning. Don't get me wrong, the music was good, but I don't think they really knew what they were doing. New Order's music seems like an example of real "artistic growth." (Not saying I like New Order more.)

Green Day, on the other hand, were always pretty solid musicians. When they went all arena rock on our asses, I guess you could call it growth. But they weren't getting taller, just fatter, ya dig? And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Gee whiz, why did I type all that?
Last edited by werty22 at Jun 10, 2010,
#9
Eh I am interested in the idea of digressions and progressions in bands, you know The Clash and all. My philosophy (that almost always holds true) Is a punks bands first album is their best, and either the decline as time goes on our they completely switch around to something that might be good, but not my thing.
I.E: Inflammable Material
The Clash
Pure Mania
Talking Heads
Bad Brains
Mischief Brew
Quote by BrianApocalypse
AntiFlag are about as punk as Justin Lame's excuse for a mohawk.

i.e. really gay.
#10
Quote by JohnnyBlunders
Eh I am interested in the idea of digressions and progressions in bands, you know The Clash and all. My philosophy (that almost always holds true) Is a punks bands first album is their best, and either the decline as time goes on our they completely switch around to something that might be good, but not my thing.
I.E: Inflammable Material
The Clash
Pure Mania
Talking Heads
Bad Brains
Mischief Brew


I could agree with the clash and talking heads in that arguement.
But i think bad brains change was pretty awesome they weren't making hardcore music anymore but they also changed to another great style of music. Which i think most people on here would agree is that Reggae/Ska is pretty damn good.
And also in that statement Mischief Brew is great and i don't really like it much now either but it's not so bad as it is.
#11
The Reggea Bad Brains make is not good for Reggea, anyway......

I could also mention the old story of Rancid, but I´ll limit it to Tim Armstrong, he really seems to think that he´s something like the new Bob Dylan......

Another band could be The Stranglers, on Feline it sounds like ambient, elevator music

A band where the change is really bad is The Partisans, they´ve been awesome on Police Story and afterwards meh.

Anyway I think you cannot expect band to make the same music for 20 years, but I do expect bands I like to keep on a certain way, music still needs passion. They cannot leave out full-hearted vocals and completely "rough" distortion sounds just because they have a better production
#12
Is someone writing a paper and looking for input, or is this a purely intellectual excercise?

The Ramones didn't digress as artists, certain members of the group, plus the record company just elected to work with more commercial producers.

I'm not gonna exemplify End of the Century though, I'll talk about 1981's Pleasant Dreams, which is essentially exactly the same musical sound, but slowed down slightly and laced with more rock-orientated overdubs.

I agree about the Partisans. They basically turned into the London Calling-era Clash, which is hit or miss. Come Clean is a fantastic song, but Partisans and Never Needed You are relatively lacklustre.
#14
Yeah, Howling at the Moon was done by Dave Stewart because the record company wanted a single. They had wanted Dave to do the whole record, but Dee Dee put his foot down and wanted Tommy. That's actually a pretty biased comprimise towards the Ramones, bearing in mind that they weren't a high-selling Sire act with a lot of weight to push around.

That said, they were dropped from the label the following year...
#15

So what should they do if they want to change their style completely? What if they're no longer interested in playing the style they're recognized for? Should they just suck it up and keep playing the same old stuff half-heartedly? Should they disband? Should they release new music with a different name? (Actually I think the latter is a pretty good solution.)


Yes, they should release it under a different name. I believe the Havoc did that (Spades and Blades or some sh*t) when they went from a street punk band to a hair band.
#16
As a life lonog fan (until recently) I have to ask

AFI Question: What was AFI's last Punk album?
Back Sails or Art of Drowning


You can ask the same sort of question with a lot of bands who were around long enough to evolve.
#17
I think it depends. If you start as a punk band (like Green Day (for purposes of this thread) and Against Me!) and then gradually start releasing more rock influenced music until you become basically a rock band, that's a natural progression. You should be able to keep your name.

But if you're a punk band and want to release a rap album, use a new name.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#18
Quote by element4433
I think it depends. If you start as a punk band (like Green Day (for purposes of this thread) and Against Me!) and then gradually start releasing more rock influenced music until you become basically a rock band, that's a natural progression. You should be able to keep your name.

But if you're a punk band and want to release a rap album, use a new name.

Unless you're the Beastie Boys
#19
Obviously.
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#20
Quote by HalfDose
As a life lonog fan (until recently) I have to ask

AFI Question: What was AFI's last Punk album?
Back Sails or Art of Drowning

I don't think there's any point to classifying them. I don't think it really matters, but this is usually how the albums are classified:

Answer That: Hardcore
Very Proud: Hardcore
Shut Your Mouth: Hardcore
Black Sails: Hardcore
Art of Drowning: Horror Punk
Sing the Sorrow: Alt Rock
DU: Pop/Rock
Crash Love: Pop/Rock
Quote by emoboy027
Is fingering an emo chick that likes yoy and that has fallen in love with you is it wrong to you to finger her during lunch outside in front of everyone at the high school? would you not care or lol even wish it was you?

Youztoobz
MIDI Magicalness!
#21
No paper, I just wanted to get all music philosopher on your butts.

I find myself agreeing with both sides. I'm kind of torn. On one side, I respect change, I respect a band pushing to new levels, trying new things out, I like medium to high production a lot of times. I think thats definitely a reason I gravitate towards what people term "Melodic Hardcore Punk". If you feel thats a bullcrap genre or whatever, fine....

On the otherside, I understand growing up, I understand developing taste, mastering your art, but throwing away all the remnants of what made you a unique great band really disappoints me. I personally think Black Sails in the Sunset and Art of Drowning are 2 of my favorite AFI albums, I like the line they danced on between melody, speed, intensity etc.

Regardless of how I feel of their new direction, don't shun the fans and pretend like the past didn't make you who you are today. Don't get pissy at me because when I spend 30 dollars of my money to see you play, I expect more then 1-2 throwback songs.

I understand you can't feel the same way about things you did 10-15 years ago.

But the question arises: Would you rather watch a beloved band half-ass it and play songs you want to hear, or do you let them progress/digress into what they feel is growth.

I don't see how you can't have a happy medium...? its so hard to say, from a fans standpoint

The green day thing I could go all day about, but to me making an adult album where youve grown up and Blahh freakin blah in Warning, that was natural. Putting on eyeliner and spouting a political message never aforementioned in your music plus the combination of that adult sound not selling bothers me. But again this is the punk forum, lets try to keep it punk.

Very interesting comments everyone, really happy someone gave a crap enough to actually respond.
Originally posted by J_Dizzle
THAAAANK YOU GoodCharloteSux is god
#22
Personally, I totally understand it if a band wants to change their sound and do new things. If they want to sign to a bigger label and be able to make a decent living from their music, then I completely respect that. I can be all uber p0nx but at the end of the day, I've always said that if I got to make a living from playing the music I love, I'd "sell-out" in a heartbeat.

The problem comes with the question of whether or not a band is still being themselves and whether their sound coincidentally changed or if they're just playing the music not because they want to, but because they only want the money/fame. I feel that unless you know the band personally, you can't really say if they're sellouts or not. And from interviews I've read with Tom Gabel, the new AM! sound isn't exactly something new. He's always loved pop-oriented rock music. It's just that now, it's what he wants to write and play.
Personally, I couldn't imagine playing the same music and singing about what I believed in 4-5 years ago. I know I'm a completely different person now. I've always loved punk, and it's still the main form of music I listen to. But my tastes in punk have changed drastically, and I love so many other kinds of music that I hope my band will get to play some day.
#23
No paper, I just wanted to get all music philosopher on your butts.


Good job. I was skeptical only because it's very rare to see a decent thread in here.

Would you rather watch a beloved band half-ass it and play songs you want to hear, or do you let them progress/digress into what they feel is growth.


In terms of live shows, I'd want to see a good mix of stuff from every era, as long as every era has inherently good songs.

If a band outgrows their early stuff, they still have an obligation to air it regularly provided it's any good.

But the group should play what they want to play. If the material is strong enough.

One example would be the New York Dolls album 'One day it will please us to remember even this'. It's really nothing like their early stuff, but it's fantasticly heartfelt and almost all very song stuff. They sadly don't play any of the good stuff from that record live. Which is a huge mistake, because it's better than anything they've done before or since.

Also, if bands want to reinterpret their material live, that's a great idea. But you can deviate too far from the original track, which has a ruining effect.

I've always thought it'd be cool to know all your songs in loads of different styles - Jazz, Soul, Funk, mid-tempo punk, downer rock, surf, country and Hardcore. My drummer is slightly too closed minded to want to do that, but it'd be a really great vehicle for writing, if you're like me and tend to write songs out of the vaguest of ideas or themes.

It'd also make you a killer support act - you could open for literally anyone.
#24
Quote by BrianApocalypse
I've always thought it'd be cool to know all your songs in loads of different styles - Jazz, Soul, Funk, mid-tempo punk, downer rock, surf, country and Hardcore. My drummer is slightly too closed minded to want to do that, but it'd be a really great vehicle for writing, if you're like me and tend to write songs out of the vaguest of ideas or themes.

It'd also make you a killer support act - you could open for literally anyone.

Yeah, I always thought it would be pretty cool to have a bunch of different arrangements for the same song. Besides the benefits to the artist's musicianship, it would provide an extra incentive for people to go to live shows, since they wouldn't just be reenactments of a recording with some crowd banter (and/or self-mutilation, since this is the punx we're talking about).
#25
^ its funny you guys mention that I love the surf rock version of Wave of Mutilation by teh Pixies. When I saw them live for their doolittle 20th Anniversary tour they played both versions at different parts of the set list, I mean they ran through Doolittle in its entirety and then took everyone for a spin.

A Band like Boysetsfire comes to my mind. My brother who is a very, general music fan calls them " that band who doesn't know who they are" Like one second its a hard rock song, then a hardcore song, then a punk song, I love it personally.

After thinking about it for awhile I'm not sure if its the change or the arrogance and attitude of the band after their Pro-digression. Like I think that bands get smug after they take on a more texture- polished sound also act as if what they did before can;t compare to what they're doing now. But a lot of times its bands buying into their own hype created by themselves, their close friends, their managers, their record label.... I read a Davey Havok interview and think " Wow this guy really dissapoints the hell out of me."

Which hey, I don't expect him or anyone else regarding artist to really care what I think or say, but if the music doesn't do it for me, I'm a fan, I shouldn't have to apologize or feel bad for complaining about it. Thats what we do as humans over-analyze and really when it comes down from it: expect way too much
Originally posted by J_Dizzle
THAAAANK YOU GoodCharloteSux is god
#26
I came in here for discussion about the progression of punk music and all I get is more conversations about The Ramones, The Clash, and Green Day
I'm an asshole.
#27
^ then start up your little segment and change the direction.
Originally posted by J_Dizzle
THAAAANK YOU GoodCharloteSux is god
#28
anyone hear about devo's new record? they actually hired market analysts and did research groups to find out which songs would sell the best, what colors sell best in artwork and all kinds of other shit. i was never a fan, but this was somehow really disappointing.
#29
Devo is a weird band. That's a weird thing to do. I know they let fans pick what songs are on the album, which is cool.


But the new album is great, so who cares?
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#30
Quote by werty22
Yeah, I always thought it would be pretty cool to have a bunch of different arrangements for the same song. Besides the benefits to the artist's musicianship, it would provide an extra incentive for people to go to live shows, since they wouldn't just be reenactments of a recording with some crowd banter (and/or self-mutilation, since this is the punx we're talking about).


Yeah, if anyone ever has the misfortune to have to read up on the academic discourses of artist integrity, one large criterion of measuring authenticity that continues to be postulated is that a record should be the artificial representation of a band's live sound.

I don't agree with that at all, because you're throwing away infinite scope for innovation. The studio is an instrument in itself to manipulate, rather than merely a carbon-copying recording device.

I don't think that a live show should replicate a studio record either. A record is a fixed point in time, while a live show, and a song is in a perpetual state of flux, and logically requires a less dead-set approach.

But that's just my philosophy. I do my own thing regardless of how punk it is, because the only argument for homogeneity in punk is in-crowd merit.
#31
If I was ever in a band...

I'd change the way I felt about stuff ALL the time. So as to confuse and alienate as many people as possible.

And I'd write hate songs about all you guys.

Just to spite you.

But I'm waaaaay too self absorbed and flaky to actually make music with other people.

So you gots nuthin' to worry 'bout.
#32
bands that have went from punk roots to pop/regular rock
AFI
Against Me
Rise Against

I like all those bands early stuff, but hate all their new stuff


one band I like where they ended up is Rancid
there new album is sooo good, I like it as much as out come the wolves and the first one.

I really like tim armstrongs solo CD too.

you cant really say the clash sold out or anything, starting with their first CD they have ALWAYS experimented with different styles
RIP lowlife (fort wayne) the best crappy crusty punk band ever!
#33
Quote by fivepointnine
bands that have went from punk roots to pop/regular rock
AFI
Against Me
Rise Against

I like all those bands early stuff, but hate all their new stuff

How about that, eh?
Quote by emoboy027
Is fingering an emo chick that likes yoy and that has fallen in love with you is it wrong to you to finger her during lunch outside in front of everyone at the high school? would you not care or lol even wish it was you?

Youztoobz
MIDI Magicalness!
#34
Quote by BrianApocalypse

The studio is an instrument in itself to manipulate, rather than merely a carbon-copying recording device.

I don't think that a live show should replicate a studio record either. A record is a fixed point in time, while a live show, and a song is in a perpetual state of flux, and logically requires a less dead-set approach.


I agree with that to a degree. I agree with using the resources given and taking full advantage of that. What I don't like is over layering to the point where it distracts me to the actual song. Like although a symphony adds atmosphere to some songs but is it really necessary to cake on a string section at the end to make it more "moving".

I always have the mentality of "Hey if we are playing live, can we pull this off without it sounding empty" A pet peeve of mine is when a band has one guitar player and the guitar player goes to play a lead or a solo and theres two guitars in the mix. Me as the educated fan of a band or if its my band involved in an issue like this I usually believe in keeping everything as organic as possible. If you don't have the resources of pulling it off live, then its better to keep it simple. I'm not saying hey heres a couple of mics, go and bang something and record it. But I'm not adding a synth, a digeradoo, and a vuvezela to a recorded track if live, its going to wind up being just us three playing our song.
Originally posted by J_Dizzle
THAAAANK YOU GoodCharloteSux is god
#36
Quote by GoodCharloteSux
I agree with that to a degree. I agree with using the resources given and taking full advantage of that. What I don't like is over layering to the point where it distracts me to the actual song. Like although a symphony adds atmosphere to some songs but is it really necessary to cake on a string section at the end to make it more "moving".

I always have the mentality of "Hey if we are playing live, can we pull this off without it sounding empty" A pet peeve of mine is when a band has one guitar player and the guitar player goes to play a lead or a solo and theres two guitars in the mix. Me as the educated fan of a band or if its my band involved in an issue like this I usually believe in keeping everything as organic as possible. If you don't have the resources of pulling it off live, then its better to keep it simple. I'm not saying hey heres a couple of mics, go and bang something and record it. But I'm not adding a synth, a digeradoo, and a vuvezela to a recorded track if live, its going to wind up being just us three playing our song.


Yeah, that a definite problem with a lot of bands.

*cough*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-syO7eV5lw

Great song, but not as powerful as the studio version. If John used slightly different equipment and played a shorter solo or one with more hendrix notes you'd get a really full sound. But the whole song sounds really wimpy. And it's not a particularly low-quality video. No disrespect to the peppers of course.

What I actually like to do is actually have layered guitar parts, because when it comes to playing the song with one guitar it's more of a challenge to be able to pull it off. it's also a great way to work out good guitar parts that don't have a clear division between lead and rhythm parts. In an older group I was in, the Trash Kittens, some of the guitar work was really cool, even though we had a rhythm guitarist who basically just played power chords, and I wasn't half the guitarist I am now. I was definitely more experimental though, I need to retain some of that. Especially seeing as I have a sh*tload of new songs with literally just power chords that don't even have proper guitar parts yet.

But playing delayered parts live works especially well if you have a strong rhythm section. It worked quite well before, even though the bass player was virtually useless. There was a pretty full sound mainly due to the fantastic drums.
#37
Definitely super empty compared to the studio version. People have to get over that solo, not that great, but not the thread to be discussing that.

I like to layer with octaves on personal recordings and things I write just for fun. When I write and formulate ideas for the band I'm in right now, I do a lot of lone octave playing where I have a powerchord section and it then if he pleases to do so ( I play bass in the band) he flavors it up with octaves on bridges and etc.

And having a useless bassist is quite unfortunate to a live sound. People don't know that the bass is off, they know that something that doesn't sound right. Its a very unglamorous and trying instrument if you don't have someone who understands their role. Not saying that bass is by anyway simple but sometimes you have to play the open E for a bit if thats what the sound calls for. A Drummer can be amazing but if its a simple ride-snare situation and youre bassist is trying to be overly technical or misses notes, it sounds like piss lol

Recording layering regarding rhythm tracks isn't my tiff, its more along the lines of having a trombone solo with no trombone player in youre group, theres no point to it, or ATLEAST compensate it live, jam off a bridge with the common theme or take those notes and transcribe them. Ive seen metal bands live where they have long acoustic intro's so they play them over their PA or whatever until the first distorted part of a song. So stupid, either play it or don;t put it in.
Originally posted by J_Dizzle
THAAAANK YOU GoodCharloteSux is god
#38
The biggest thing that comes to mind when i think about progression/digression in punx is AM!. there newer stuff has been much more poppy but shows more talent in song writing, vocal talent, and philosophical views. I think simply dismissing a movement made by a band as digressing because you personally don't like the music is ignorant, but thats only my opinion. All in all, most people probably don't like progress, but the people on this forum dont really fall into the category of most people anyway. People like something easy to listen to, especially if its the same basic thing over and over again, look at modern popular music. Progression as a musician normally leads away from that and stirs the pot a little too much, but thats what balls are for. I dont think anyone should really be against it, in any form really.

I dont really have a line to draw, i may not like the creative decisions but i still respect them and give the music a chance.

a band goes too far when they use the idea of "growth" as an excuse to make pop music... *cough green day cough* but even then, we all grow up eventually and lives change.
#39
Good responses.

Yeah, I like octave parts a lot too, especially when the balance between subtle and noticable is just right, it's a really cool thing to happen.

I got the EHPOG2 octaver last month, and I've been doing some recordings with that. I've even run drums and vocals through it and back into the desk with a little bit of octave above and below to thicken the sound a little bit, it's a fun thing to do.

In terms of going back to the stuff that can't be recreated live without using tapes, I do in theory like the idea of reinterpreting these parts of the songs so they're workable.

Unfortunately though in practice you just get an obvious solution, when the bands could think outside the box more.
#40
Quote by nashawa
I think it's too much to ask for a band to put out multiple albums that sound the same. It's also an absurd thought that bands would actually WANT to do this. I don't wear the same clothes I did when I was 14, so I don't think it's fair to expect a band to sound the same for their entire career. Whether or not you like the band's direction, you have to agree that making music they like should be their priority.


Exactly this.

Bands are never gonna shell out two albums with the same type of material, lest they risk getting stale and uncreative in the eyes of the listeners.
Quote by SG_dave at #33549256
I've never wanted to see a guy eat dick so much in my life.
Quote by ali.guitarkid7 at #33553650
If you are white, you are scum.
Page 1 of 2