Get Ya Freak On.

[Paul Escobar]

Paul: it's always funny to hear someone listening to Laibach. They're prolly the only really important musical export from ex-Yu.

Heh, I kinda thought Laibach was mandatory for anyone with more than a passing interest in modern music. It's not music for everyone by far, but everyone should at least give them a listen. What do you think of them?

The only tracks on it I really like are the two with Karin Dreijer Andersson on vocals, and that's mainly because they remind me vaguely of The Knife.

Have you heard Fever Ray? Karin solo effort. Haven't heard it myself but everyone's wiiiiiiiiiiild for it.

Yes; I'm sort of undecided if I like it. It's the kind of album I want to like - Dreijer's singing is great, the kind-of-but-not-really ambient music style is nice, but the songs themselves just kind of start, saunter along, and stop again without making much impact. They don't grow on me despite repeated listenings. Fever Ray is going to disappoint you if you expect something similar to The Knife, and I guess I sort of did, oops. Then again, an album as great as The Knife's "Silent Shout" would be hard to follow up on.

As to the new Depeche Mode, it is a lot more flat that some of other releases. There's a few stand out tracks, "wrong" is better on the record than it was on the prerelease, Peace is pretty cool, and In Chains is great. But over all it feels very much more akin to Exciter.

So DM's taken to following the widespread album principle of "three good songs, the rest not so much"?

[McDuffies]

Heh I hit the wrong button and almost reported Keff's post to a mod. Meaning myself. And her.

I wonder if we can talk about albums that leaked. hmmhmClueshmmm

Gonna say YES because I've name-dropped them a couple of times in this thread and I'm glad to finally have someone to gab about it with.

I've only listened to the album a couple of times; I identified "Haarp," "Approach the Throne," and "Perfect Fit" as immediately catchy, but the rest of it was already starting to grow on me. There aren't any tracks that I'd identify as weak, but the arrangement is a little off: there's a kind of weird lull in the tracks grouped around "In the Dream" that bothers me, but it picks up again after that and holds your interest 'til the end. So, it's a pretty solid offering, and I will definitely be picking it up once it's commercially available. Also! It's a lot less self-consciously wacky than one might expect from a Unicorns alumnus, for anyone that was put off by that.

I saw it namedropped and got it. I like it, it's weird and diverse, at times it's extremely melodic, other times totally oposite. One could get an impression that it's made by several bands. "Ledmonton" is the track I like the most right now, medieval punk, awesome.

Speaking of which, I feel a little sorry for all the ex-members of The Unicorns, because so much of the hype surrounding their new bands comes from their involvement with said group, and The Unicorns only released one album (well, and an EP, I guess), so it's not like they had a chance to screw things up and alienate everyone with a sophomore slump. So much of the fanbase seems to want nothing more than a re-hash of "Who Will Cut Our Hair When We’re Gone?" or at least insists on excessively comparing new efforts to it (It happened to Islands, too), even when - what? - four-fifths of Clues is cobbled together from ex-members of other Canadian bands. Pretty sad.

Supergroups are kind of a strange affair, people always have different expectations from them, but noone expects them to last for long - an album or two, and if we're lucky they'll be great albums, if we're not, they'll be mediocre. I'd rather see guys like Penner settle with one band than fly from project to project, but with any scene interconnected like Cannadian, a lot of permutations are inevitable.

Actually, as a Band Guy yourself, McDuffies, what's your take on leaks? On one hand, if I listen to an album and enjoy it enough to listen to it for more than a couple of spins, I make a point of buying it on the release date and if I really love it, I make sure to pre-order it so that if I end up burning myself out on it before the release date I'm essentially forced to buy it anyway (basically, I spend all my tip money on music and make good use of sales). The same goes for any other music I download, and I kind of feel as though if I hadn't found a band through internet downloading, I never would have discovered and purchased their music at all, so everyone wins. On the other hand, most downloaders are stupid babies with a huge sense of self-entitlement who won't even purchase merchandise from bands they claim to adore, and I can understand how a musician would get frustrated that shitty-quality leaks are available months before an album's release, potentially killing the buzz on the actual release date. You put in all that effort for some kid to come along and download it in a couple of minutes because they can't wait another month, etc.

As an artist guy in general, I don't like anyone seeing my unfinished work. It's the reason why I don't bother with leaks, with exceptions (I actually didn't know Clues still wasn't out). I think that artist really has to say when the work is done and ready for the world, and I always figure, maybe they'll do some additional production after the leak. I would do it, just to be a meanie.

Of course as a guy in a fresh new band, I welcome oportunities that computers and internet gave musicians. Internet is a powerful tool for free advertising and the only people who object to that are those unwilling to adjust their business and god forsake try something new.
People are so reclutant to give something for free, it's almost a panic. But there are many cases where sales are boosted by leaks, such as the case of Kid A. I don't know about USA, but in France it's customary to walk into a comic book store and spend as much time as you want reading comics. There are even benches for that purpose and book stores aren't afraid that this will reduce their sales.
We were selling our self-release by "Radiohead model ", meaning that we let people pay as much as they wanted for it, and in general people were giving more than we expected. Great deal of it is support, bands aren't put on pedestal anymore, listeners see them as normal guys who are trying to get by and could use that kind of support, which might not work so well for Sting who has a castle in Scottland and whatnot, but for bands like us it works great and it'd be hipocritical to use internet, then decline it as soon as you see some money. Bottom line is if I had to make casettes and mail them for thirty years like Stevie R Moore, I just wouldn't have that kind of patience.

Of course I've heard those pricks who soapbox about how music belongs to everyone and not to the one who wrote it, practiced it, paid the studio to record it and broke his back until he talked someone into releasing it. I don't think that attitude presents danger to business model, after all piracy is already raving around, and that's only the reason more to make it institutionalized in some way. The more you tighten the belt, the more people will want to escape from it.

I mean, hey, I'm living in the darkest corner of Europe, and I'm listening to the same music as you. How cool is that?

Paul: it's always funny to hear someone listening to Laibach. They're prolly the only really important musical export from ex-Yu.

Heh, I kinda thought Laibach was mandatory for anyone with more than a passing interest in modern music. It's not music for everyone by far, but everyone should at least give them a listen. What do you think of them?

I didn't think they were well known, their importance is in which musicians namedrop them as influences. Admittedly I'm not a big fan, it may be that I'm a bit biased because guys always seemed in person like jerks, and a lot of their iconography seems to me like shock for the sake of shock. The other reason might be that I think that a lot of industrial bands drew influences from them, expanded upon them, and rendered them kind of out-of-date. Though things like "Let it be" are interesting for at least a few listens.

As to the new Depeche Mode, it is a lot more flat that some of other releases. There's a few stand out tracks, "wrong" is better on the record than it was on the prerelease, Peace is pretty cool, and In Chains is great. But over all it feels very much more akin to Exciter.

So DM's taken to following the widespread album principle of "three good songs, the rest not so much"? [/quote]
I wonder how we can apply George Martin's formula to that...

[Keffria]

Heh I hit the wrong button and almost reported Keff's post to a mod. Meaning myself. And her.

Hahaha oh nooooooooo

Supergroups are kind of a strange affair, people always have different expectations from them, but noone expects them to last for long - an album or two, and if we're lucky they'll be great albums, if we're not, they'll be mediocre. I'd rather see guys like Penner settle with one band than fly from project to project, but with any scene interconnected like Cannadian, a lot of permutations are inevitable.

Heh, yeah, I'm a little resigned to the fact that most of the fabulous up-and-coming Canadian bands we're all a-buzz about will rapidly splinter off and re-combine into new freakish musical entities without leaving a satisfyingly large discography, and "supergroup" means almost nothing in a country where everyone has recorded albums in Chad VanGaalen's basement, cribbed someone from Arcade Fire, and played in Broken Social Scene (to use the most obvious examples). Anyway, glad you enjoyed the album.

As an artist guy in general, I don't like anyone seeing my unfinished work. It's the reason why I don't bother with leaks, with exceptions (I actually didn't know Clues still wasn't out). I think that artist really has to say when the work is done and ready for the world, and I always figure, maybe they'll do some additional production after the leak. I would do it, just to be a meanie.

I also like the model that some bands have adopted where you pre-order and then get a digital download, so that you can support them but still be an impatient baby. On the subject of comics, I loved being able to read in French comic book shops (especially since a lot of their hardcovers were so damned expensive after the conversion from Euros to CAD). Here in Canada, it's strongly discouraged in most shops, especially with comics; "manga kids" is a common pejorative applied to tweens who lounge around in bookstores reading the latest imported trash (although they're pretty rough on the books so it's a little different).

I mean, hey, I'm living in the darkest corner of Europe, and I'm listening to the same music as you. How cool is that?

Yesss, pretty awesome.

Hey, did y'all know that there is a new Nomo (http://www.myspace.com/nomomusic) album coming out soon? I really liked last year's Ghost Rock and I guess the new album was recorded around the same time.

[Yeahduff]

That's not usually the kind of stuff I'm into but I like it. Might turn on Sublet to that.

Canada is basically one big supergroup. There might be like ten different acts directly connected to The New Pornographers and Broken Social Scene alone. Not that supergroups are exciting at all to me. Lucy Pearl was cool, but I dunno, The Raconteurs? Oysterhead? Audioslave? About a dozen others I forgot about because who cares? Bands are more than a sum of their parts, and it seems egos get in the way with supergroups. Maybe that's why it works in Canada, just a buncha socialists up there.

Been listening to The Dream a lot the last few days, and I think I'm ready to fall in love with it.

[Paul Escobar]

Heh, I kinda thought Laibach was mandatory for anyone with more than a passing interest in modern music. It's not music for everyone by far, but everyone should at least give them a listen. What do you think of them?

I didn't think they were well known, their importance is in which musicians namedrop them as influences.

True, they're not hit list material. Still, it's a name many people have at least heard about, as it's a band that has had big influence on other bands.

Admittedly I'm not a big fan, it may be that I'm a bit biased because guys always seemed in person like jerks, and a lot of their iconography seems to me like shock for the sake of shock.

Hmm, I never had any impression of them as people, since they stick to that "Laibach is a collective, individuals don't matter" routine when doing interviews - they never answer personal questions. Even questions about music they're prone to answer with statements about the function of art and music in the general cultural fabric rather than say anything about working methods, stylistical preferences or such.

I don't really care if musicians are jerks or nice guys. I'm listening to their music, not dealing with them in private.

The other reason might be that I think that a lot of industrial bands drew influences from them, expanded upon them, and rendered them kind of out-of-date. Though things like "Let it be" are interesting for at least a few listens.

I think Laibach are generally underrated due to most people knowing only their (admittedly notable) cover versions. Where most "industrial" bands tend to stick to a formula, Laibach's output is very varied. Some of their best music IMO is the music that doesn't follow traditional pop song structures, like their brilliant scores for the theatre pieces "Krst pod Triglavom - Baptism" and "Macbeth".

So DM's taken to following the widespread album principle of "three good songs, the rest not so much"?

I wonder how we can apply George Martin's formula to that...

What, strings?

Not that supergroups are exciting at all to me.

This. Very much this. So-called supergroups are almost invariably much less super than the groups the members came from. I don't know if it's necessarily egos getting in the way. Could simply be because people decide to play together for no other reason than they were all in great bands, but without actually having any musical chemistry going on.

[McDuffies]

Heh, yeah, I'm a little resigned to the fact that most of the fabulous up-and-coming Canadian bands we're all a-buzz about will rapidly splinter off and re-combine into new freakish musical entities without leaving a satisfyingly large discography, and "supergroup" means almost nothing in a country where everyone has recorded albums in Chad VanGaalen's basement, cribbed someone from Arcade Fire, and played in Broken Social Scene (to use the most obvious examples). Anyway, glad you enjoyed the album.

Seems like all the local scenes are like that. It's just that in this case, local scene is entire country.

On the subject of comics, I loved being able to read in French comic book shops (especially since a lot of their hardcovers were so damned expensive after the conversion from Euros to CAD). Here in Canada, it's strongly discouraged in most shops, especially with comics; "manga kids" is a common pejorative applied to tweens who lounge around in bookstores reading the latest imported trash (although they're pretty rough on the books so it's a little different).

It's a whole different treatment of comics, in France they are aqual to written literature, while in America they have all the respect and lasting value of daily newspapers. In general, I guess, over there folks don't think that comics are something worth posessing after you've read it, or god forsake posessing a quality, hardbound copy of it.

a lot of their hardcovers were so damned expensive

Oh yeah... in general, 60-pager on A4 format should hold an entire, self-suficcient story inside, which is worth what, 15-20 swiss franks. But lots of artists, specially commercial ones, like to take the easy way out and treat the album as if it was one issue of a comic book, dragging the story over dozens of issues of which none really holds too much story. Then, that's not worth 15-20 franks. Which is why it's so good to have a chance to see whether it's worth buying in advance (of course publishers might not benefit from showing, say, how crappy new Jodorovsky album is to deluded fans why are still expecting something on level of Incal or Aleph).
I personally tend to get independent releases, which are of course more expensive than mainstream ones, but usually more condensed too. Not easily impressed by shiny colours.

Hmm, I never had any impression of them as people, since they stick to that "Laibach is a collective, individuals don't matter" routine when doing interviews - they never answer personal questions. Even questions about music they're prone to answer with statements about the function of art and music in the general cultural fabric rather than say anything about working methods, stylistical preferences or such.

Then let's say that I didn't like some of their opinions, even if I didn't know if they said it as a pose, or if as individuals they really mean it.

I don't really care if musicians are jerks or nice guys. I'm listening to their music, not dealing with them in private.

Well if you got the impression of the guys before you heard their music like I did, it's bound to form some bias.
For the record, I do believe that one's art is projection of his personality, and enjoying someone's art is in a lot of ways like hanging with the person himself.

I think Laibach are generally underrated due to most people knowing only their (admittedly notable) cover versions. Where most "industrial" bands tend to stick to a formula, Laibach's output is very varied. Some of their best music IMO is the music that doesn't follow traditional pop song structures, like their brilliant scores for the theatre pieces "Krst pod Triglavom - Baptism" and "Macbeth".

Haha, Krst pod Triglavom. Lucky thing they're singing in english a lot, otherwise I might not understand them either.

So DM's taken to following the widespread album principle of "three good songs, the rest not so much"?

I wonder how we can apply George Martin's formula to that...

What, strings?

No, the "start strong - end strong - be strong in the middle" rule. Basically you have to be Beatles to follow through.

Not that supergroups are exciting at all to me.

This. Very much this. So-called supergroups are almost invariably much less super than the groups the members came from. I don't know if it's necessarily egos getting in the way. Could simply be because people decide to play together for no other reason than they were all in great bands, but without actually having any musical chemistry going on.

I liked Raconteurs. Mind you, not up to measure with White Stripes, but if you approached them without knowing who was in the bend, I think they'd still be strong. But that's the case where supergroup was formed spontaneously, not to give a job to a musician whose group has fallen apart and to potentially merge fanbase of different bands and all those things for which supergroups are usually formed. There are good examples, I mean technically Gnarls Barkley is a supergroup, and that turned out pretty awesome.
But I think, with a musician starting anew after a breakup of a successful group, his ego boosted, he wants to have much more control over things than he used to have, and that's why they usually go solo or form something that's essentially their backing band, and if there's a sroup where they're not alpha and omega, it's just a passing affair. But there are exceptiong from that too, I mean Crosby Stills Nash and Young lasted for quite a while, right?

[Yeahduff]

The Raconteurs have a few good songs but nothing to get excited about. Feel like we've had this conversation before.

Speaking of which, have we discussed personality and how it relates to artistry?

[McDuffies]

I think that we've brushed off on subject here and there. I believe that if art is personal, you can see artist's character through it. And then if it's not personal, ie if it's produced on a conveyer belt, then it's not worth talking about in the first place.
Not that I say that if artist is a jerk, his art is worthless, there are some very interesting jerks worth hanging out and listening to. But if you're irritated by a kind of person, then his art will be irritating for you as well.

[Yeahduff]

To a certain extent that makes sense. But while I might appreciate a nice person, nice art doesn't sound very interesting.

[Prettysenshi]

Imogen Heap is so fucking raw. I LOVE HER RIGHT NOW.

Her song, Leave Me to Love, sounds like a really low budget demo, but omg it's like an audio doodle, which is the absolute best. It's so raw and fresh, I love it.

[Risky]

Imogen Heap is so fucking raw. I LOVE HER RIGHT NOW.

Her song, Leave Me to Love, sounds like a really low budget demo, but omg it's like an audio doodle, which is the absolute best. It's so raw and fresh, I love it.

I approve of this Imogen Heap, she gives an awesome concert experience.

[Phact0rri]

No, the "start strong - end strong - be strong in the middle" rule. Basically you have to be Beatles to follow through.

The Beatles... meh. Seriously I know they are well thought of, but in my my musical prefrence they've really not been that strong of a band. Some of the early stuff was alright in terms of pop strength, but the last few albums really didn't have that. I think that there are a few bands that have had strong releases. Granted most of the bands weren't out but three or four albums like The Smiths or Joy Division, but over all, I believe time is to catch up with you. Leonard Cohen comes to mind, as to not having a bad record.

In terms of Depeche Mode, I think the only weak record they've had is Exciter, and that record is not a total wash. In terms of pop-strength, Sounds of the Universe isn't a bad record. And though its not a power release in my own opinion, a lot of people really enjoyed it. To most of my friends who dig DM they love it.

[McDuffies]

Martin's principle is kinda funny to me because it implies that you have, like, seven or eight great songs per album, but when you have that you usually have a strong album any way you turn. Beatles as a band with three principal songwriters of quite a caliber could pull that off, for today's bands that usually have, well, less than three strong songwriters, that's a more difficult task.

Anyways when it comes to "time catching up" I don't think that Beatles are comparable to newer groups, because recording industry functioned in different way. They recorded together for about eight years, only pacing of two albums a year make it look longer. Most of bands today won't have a chance to record two albums a year even if they wanted, but they'll have a chance to throw away their weaker songs, which is something Beatles practically weren't allowed to do. Basically, they never did have time to get washed out, of course time did catch up with each of them individually which is I think apparent in their solo albums, but when they broke apart, they were all around 29 which is awfully young to be spent out.
Perhaps it can be comparable to Bowie's 70ies period where he had a streak of 1.5 to 2 albums a year and majority of them are strong.

Mileages may vary. I think that Abbey Road is one of their strongest albums, White Album has a lot of strong stuff but as a double album it's wattered down, Let it Be is basically unfinished project that other people wrapped up hastily, and there are some strong singles from that period as well. Even then, that's still about 20% of their output and last two years of their career.
My view is that they had more or less condensed albums all through the career . Early Hard Days night sounds to me like several hits and a bunch outtakes from earlier albums and singles. But all through career remained inovative and whimsical, which were their greatest strengths. Perhaps in one part of career accent was on inovations in songwriting, in other in production, or form, or different genre influences...

I've already mentioned, I think that Radiohead had only one weaker record, Pablo Honey. They seem to use the same system as Leonard Cohen, releasing albums not too often, and not before they're sure they have a strong album on their hands. Of course they have a bunch of B-sides collections and EPs whose strength varies, which aren't included in official discography, but we're still thankful for them.
Well all artists with decades under their belt have slump periods. But most of artists eventually go progressively downhill, with each album weaker and weaker until it all gets pointless, which is why it's good that artists like Cave and Byrne seem to be going steady, despite occasional slumps.

To a certain extent that makes sense. But while I might appreciate a nice person, nice art doesn't sound very interesting.

Nice people can be boring and imaginative.
To an extent yeah, although art gets projected onto a reader as well, and gets into a different perspective with time. But asides from that, dumb person can't make a clever comic, heartless person can't make a soulful comic, an egotist can't make a comic that isn't, sub-consciously, all about himself, etc etc. In the end, what you read reflects what you are, and then what you read influences what you create, and there you go.

[McDuffies]

aglajblajglaj

[Keffria]

"Hah, you fanboy," said the pot to the kettle.

This. Very much this. So-called supergroups are almost invariably much less super than the groups the members came from. I don't know if it's necessarily egos getting in the way. Could simply be because people decide to play together for no other reason than they were all in great bands, but without actually having any musical chemistry going on.

The problem's lessened a little if the members at least perform different functions in their respective main projects, but if you just get a bunch of songwriters or whatever in the same room, supergroups - even the Canadian ones (without name-dropping any in particular) - just feel like vehicles for B-side material from all the collaborators.

Regarding jerk musicians: I don't really care, most of the time, about what the artist behind the music is like, unless I'm really fangirling over them. But I think that has to do with the way I've been scolded for years to avoid the "intentional fallacy" in my research. That being said, if I'm listening to a jerk-rock band*, I would expect the members to be jerks, though it would be a pleasant surprise to find out that they were civilized; if I were to find out that a soulful singer-songwriter was a complete asshole offstage, conversely, that would probably make me reconsider his music. Double standards.

And from a couple of pages back:

Oh and also Spoon [should make another record].

Have you listened to White Rabbits? Their new album is basically a Spoon record with more DRAMATIC PIANO. I'm kind of on the fence about whether this is awesome or not, but leaning towards YES.

*(Speaking of which, I am excited about the new Future of the Left release, which leaked, and good ol' Falco proceeded to write all asshole-like about it, including threats of physical violence to the person responsible for said leak and whining about how stupid impatient downloading children will get what they deserve.)

[McDuffies]

"Hah, you fanboy," said the pot to the kettle.

But I was fifteen when I started listening to them. It's a good age for developing healthy and totally platonic worshipping relation with people you've never met!

The problem's lessened a little if the members at least perform different functions in their respective main projects, but if you just get a bunch of songwriters or whatever in the same room, supergroups - even the Canadian ones (without name-dropping any in particular) - just feel like vehicles for B-side material from all the collaborators.

I checked list of supergroups on wiki, and I wouldn't even call half of them supergroups. Why would I care if they got a drummer from that band if the drummer is not Roger Taylor ie someone who actually participates in creative process? I don't really think it should be called supergroup unless there's at least a few people who were major creative forces in their band. The rest are just, you know, regular bands, cause when a popular band breaks apart, all musicians have to get new steady jobs, and it's probably easier to find one in your social circle.

Regarding jerk musicians: I don't really care, most of the time, about what the artist behind the music is like, unless I'm really fangirling over them. But I think that has to do with the way I've been scolded for years to avoid the "intentional fallacy" in my research. That being said, if I'm listening to a jerk-rock band*, I would expect the members to be jerks, though it would be a pleasant surprise to find out that they were civilized; if I were to find out that a soulful singer-songwriter was a complete asshole offstage, conversely, that would probably make me reconsider his music. Double standards.

To me message is very important part of music, so who is actually telling this message is part of the context. People will say that it's irrelevant pecause it's not obviously present in music itself, it requires aditional knowledge outside of listening to the song.
But take for example a song like "When the war came" from "Crane wife". Sure you can like this song by itself, and lyrics function independently, but when you know which historic event the song is reffering to, story behind it, you get the fuller, more complete appreciation and enjoying of the song. That's another case where you need some additional context to put the song in certain light. To me, it's not much different from getting to know who is delivering the message.
Of course it's not so simple because reading about someone is not the same as knowing them, and there might be no such thing as reliable source. Like, Bjork has constantly been portrayed as a major jerk in tabloids and papers, but it seems like this is more a result of strained relationship between her and media and she's actually cool. On the other hand, some other artists like Bono or Kayne seem to put a lot into presenting their personality to the public.

But that's all said under the assumption that work is not influenced by the creator, and that creator's personality is not visible through the work. But really, I don't need to see Colin Meloy's bio page to know that he's a scholar and history buff, or Ween's to see that they are a couple of dumbasses (in positive way). You can follow life of a musician such as Bowie through his music - listening to "Station to station" and "Low", you see an obvious break of the flow between those two albums, you don't need to read his biography to know it.
The more I think about it, the more the whole "I don't care what kind of person musician is" attitude seems like one of those big fallacies that get repeated without thinking them through, because musician and his work are not clearly separable. Yeah, a despicable person can come up with a hook, or can be technically good guitar player, but does a hook or a good guitar solo alone make a good music? Again, I care a lot about actual message that is communicated and the attitude, and hooks or technical aspects are just things that help us swallow this message easier.
I dunno, the "I don't care..." line seems a lot like rationalization, like if you've listened to something and then realised that a lot of what you've seen in it isn't really there but you've read it into the music, but you decide to force yourself back to blissful ignorance. Maybe a bit exagerated, but something like that.

Have you listened to White Rabbits? Their new album is basically a Spoon record with more DRAMATIC PIANO. I'm kind of on the fence about whether this is awesome or not, but leaning towards YES.

Dunno, if they sound a lot like Spoon, that may be a put off. What I like about Spoon is how minimal they are, often just keyboard or something else and rhythm, and it's a sort of sustained feel that's kept through entire song.

*(Speaking of which, I am excited about the new Future of the Left release, which leaked, and good ol' Falco proceeded to write all asshole-like about it, including threats of physical violence to the person responsible for said leak and whining about how stupid impatient downloading children will get what they deserve.)

Are they socialists or something?

***
Btw what do you guys think about tracking down single B-sides, outtakes and such stuff? Do you do it? Is it worth the effort? Is it just obsessive behaviour, or is it reasonable to want more if you like the artist?
***
This is cool.

[Keffria]

Heh. That comic is ridiculously wordy but the artist has done a couple of pages like that and they're awesome.

I can't speak for everyone, but I have a substantial collection of singles, B-sides, etc. from a bunch of bands I really enjoy, including some that are on vinyl even though I no longer have a record player. (>_>) I like to listen to rarities because they're often an insight into a musician's process/evolution. (I especially like finding a good artist and then listening to early demos/EPs because that's just the sort of thing you get, and you kind of realize that if you didn't like the artist before, there's no way this would be appealing, and you feel secretly smug, I suppose, haha.)

I dunno, the "I don't care..." line seems a lot like rationalization, like if you've listened to something and then realised that a lot of what you've seen in it isn't really there but you've read it into the music, but you decide to force yourself back to blissful ignorance. Maybe a bit exagerated, but something like that.

I guess "I don't care" was a bit too strong: what I mean is that if you get too caught up in the biography of an artist of any sort, it can keep you from thinking about the different meanings a work can have, as commentary on things other than intensely personal life events, or even independent of the person who created the piece in the first place. Like taking those Decemberists songs and trying to spin them as nothing but Colin Meloy's life-stories, I guess. Some songs are also obviously more personal than others, in which case the biography does interest me.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with thinking about meanings that the artist didn't intend to be "really there" in a song; again, this is probably just the pretentious jackass lit student talking, but once art reaches the public, its appreciators are going to play around with its meanings in unexpected ways and I would hesitate to discount all of them -- especially when you get a lot of people making these "mistaken" interpretations, maybe it says something about the social context in which they're making them.

[Risky]

I go for the rarities / b-sides / concert-only stuffs. If I hear a band I like covered a song I like in a concert, I'll do my best to track down a copy, and I also like finding ones I didn't hear about first. I have a shocking number of copies of 31 flavors, Time After Time, and other songs that for some reason a lot of artists use as their encore.

[McDuffies]

idiculously wordy

Hey, I was just trying... oh wait, you're talking about that comic and not my post.

Heh. That comic is ridiculously wordy but the artist has done a couple of pages like that and they're awesome.

Well, at least it's always saying something with wordiness... not like in those comics where characters ramble in circles.
I'm pretty much enjoying it right now.

I can't speak for everyone, but I have a substantial collection of singles, B-sides, etc. from a bunch of bands I really enjoy, including some that are on vinyl even though I no longer have a record player. (>_>) I like to listen to rarities because they're often an insight into a musician's process/evolution. (I especially like finding a good artist and then listening to early demos/EPs because that's just the sort of thing you get, and you kind of realize that if you didn't like the artist before, there's no way this would be appealing, and you feel secretly smug, I suppose, haha.)

For me collecting rarities is the final stage of adoring the group. When I've listened all the albums to death, and I crave for more. Thing is usually they turn out underwhelming, Like, I could have lived without getting Crane Wife and Picaresque bonus discs, it's mostly curiousity why I got them in the first place. But also there are always exceptions like a few songs from "5 songs", or when it comes to aforementioned Blur, "Far out" which is on album only in sadly shortened version, or Beatles' "That means a lot" which is also one of my favourites but there's only a demo in their interpretation... so I guess spotting those underprecciated jewels makes it worthwhile.
But as far as my repertoire goes, Radiohead are the only band whose additional album is comparable to main albums, the only case where EP's and B-sides collections are a must.
I'm not too interested in live albums, I just don't think that you can record atmosphere of the show anyway. I'll only track live albums if there's something special about them, non-album songs, radically different versions or a lot of improvisation. Like "Air".

and you kind of realize that if you didn't like the artist before, there's no way this would be appealing, and you feel secretly smug, I suppose, haha.)

Oh man, that's like listening to late 70ies and 80ies stuff from Kinks. I keep wondering whether I'd like it at all if I haven't at first listened to early stuff that much.

I guess "I don't care" was a bit too strong: what I mean is that if you get too caught up in the biography of an artist of any sort, it can keep you from thinking about the different meanings a work can have, as commentary on things other than intensely personal life events, or even independent of the person who created the piece in the first place. Like taking those Decemberists songs and trying to spin them as nothing but Colin Meloy's life-stories, I guess. Some songs are also obviously more personal than others, in which case the biography does interest me.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with thinking about meanings that the artist didn't intend to be "really there" in a song; again, this is probably just the pretentious jackass lit student talking, but once art reaches the public, its appreciators are going to play around with its meanings in unexpected ways and I would hesitate to discount all of them -- especially when you get a lot of people making these "mistaken" interpretations, maybe it says something about the social context in which they're making them.

You're not pretentiouss jackass enough if you haven't namedropped Jacques Derida or Paul DeMann.
Hehheh. But seriously, I partly agree with you, I used to read to Derida and mostly agreed with his ideas that work lives on independently from the source, but then again I saw a lot of cases where artists abused this, merely trying to be as vague as possible, expecting that more audience members will read something into it, therefore more audience. That forced me to question those views, to put a line between where interpretation is inherent in the work, and where it's just viewer's projection. I suppose if idea is inherent in the work, everyone (or at least many different people, independently) should be able to see it.
But it's certain that the work has to have more than one possible interpretation. I guess when I was talking about biographical context, I didn't mean that it lends you the "true" or "better" interpretation, but that this interpretation is closer to the one artist originally intended.
So I guess I don't think that works of art have such thing as "right interpretation*", but there sure as hell is "wrong interpretation.

*though that won't stop me from arguing that my interpretation is the right one in particular cases.

[Keffria]

For me collecting rarities is the final stage of adoring the group. When I've listened all the albums to death, and I crave for more. Thing is usually they turn out underwhelming, Like, I could have lived without getting Crane Wife and Picaresque bonus discs, it's mostly curiousity why I got them in the first place. But also there are always exceptions like a few songs from "5 songs", or when it comes to aforementioned Blur, "Far out" which is on album only in sadly shortened version, or Beatles' "That means a lot" which is also one of my favourites but there's only a demo in their interpretation... so I guess spotting those underprecciated jewels makes it worthwhile.

Yes, this exactly. And I'm undecided on live albums; some of them are fabulous summaries of a band's body of work or quirky enough to warrant purchasing, but so many bands I like are pretty crappy live. The banter is sometimes fun, though.

You're not pretentiouss jackass enough if you haven't namedropped Jacques Derida or Paul DeMann. Hehheh. But seriously, I partly agree with you, I used to read to Derida and mostly agreed with his ideas that work lives on independently from the source, but then again I saw a lot of cases where artists abused this, merely trying to be as vague as possible, expecting that more audience members will read something into it, therefore more audience. That forced me to question those views, to put a line between where interpretation is inherent in the work, and where it's just viewer's projection. I suppose if idea is inherent in the work, everyone (or at least many different people, independently) should be able to see it.

I'm relieved that we see eye-to-eye on this because I was not looking forward to actually discussing theorists, haha. (I always feel like a jerk if I start quoting Derrida, or horribly out-of-date if I name-drop Fish, etc., but that's essentially the sort of theoretical work I was sorta-plagiarizing in my comments.) You're right, though: not everyone is as qualified to make judgments about a piece of work, and if you're the only one seeing something in a song, it might be a good idea to reexamine it. (I, meanwhile, am always entirely correct. '_')


Oh hay, y'all, the CD drive in my mac laptop is kind of borked at the moment (it reads my burned discs but won't read anything legal), and I have a bunch of new music I really want to rip, so I'm stuck using the family's PC. What program do you folks usually use?