The [New] Music Thread

[jvcc]

The beginning of that video reminded me that at my work the other day one of the little girls (maybe three or four years old) brought a purse with her to the nursery, and inside were paper, pencils, and a tiny plastic fetus doll.

I'm going to post some songs that I like:

The video for "Loco Mosquito" is quite possibly my favorite music video ever: it's just footage of Iggy Pop in a London hotel room and then going to a Clash concert. It's wonderful in its simplicity (the same can be said for the video for "Dog Food"). I like the song itself a lot, too. It makes me feel like I'm going to jump out of skin in the best possible way.

In reference to songs to dance to, this is a good one. I haven't listened to anything else by her that I've particularly liked, though.

"Big Brother" is a great song by David Bowie. I think this version (taken from a CD of a live performance at Tower Theater in Philadelphia in the 80s) is the best one. Apparently a few of the songs from Diamond Dogs were meant to be part of a 1984 musical that never got made. So when I listen to the song I imagine that I end up getting the musical produced and that in the final scene Bowie plays Winston when he's older, and the lyrics "We want you, Big Brother" are changed to "We love you, Big Brother." It's all very dramatic.

This is another fun song. The lead singer of the band is addicted to heroin, apparently. The video's kind of stupid.

[quetzalcoatlus]

I enjoyed those Iggy Pop videos. I like when music videos clearly have absolutely no budget but still manage to get something entertaining out of whatever they can scrounge up - The Meat Puppets' "Get On Down" would be a fun example.

So, the new Sleigh Bells album leaked. It sounds like Sleigh Bells. Well, it's the same formula of loud drum machines, louder guitars, and girly vocals, but not quite mixed in such a distorted, headachey manner. One new element is the occasional non-distorted guitar, which is most prominent on the song "End Of The Line" - the guitar tone on that one almost makes me think of Cocteau Twins for some reason. The single is "Comeback Kid", which is up there with their catchier stuff.

[Android Replica]

It's not new (it was recorded in 1975) but I re-listened to The Residents' "Third Reich and Roll" album. It's pretty amazing stuff.

[fanelian]

Accidentay, somehow I clicked on the media player sample folder at work and I discovered something there that I had to, immediately, get my headphones on and listen to: A track from an album called "Ninja Tuna" by Mr. Scruff. I don't go about my life listening to electronic, but I <3 this, if only because it's made this morning awesome.

mr_scruff_ninja_tuna_front.jpg (36.14 KiB) Viewed 1092 times

[James]

Mr Scruff is quite into his aquatic puns, if I remember correctly.

(Ninja Tune is an electronic music record label.)

[EvilJekyll]

Do not pay for The Mars Volta's new album. It just doesn't work as an album. The concepts are new, but not well put together and the songs usually languish for minutes at a time before actually getting to anything interesting.

[chrismachine]

Accidentay, somehow I clicked on the media player sample folder at work and I discovered something there that I had to, immediately, get my headphones on and listen to: A track from an album called "Ninja Tuna" by Mr. Scruff. I don't go about my life listening to electronic, but I <3 this, if only because it's made this morning awesome.

mr_scruff_ninja_tuna_front.jpg

That is also available on my school's computers!

[quetzalcoatlus]

Do not pay for The Mars Volta's new album. It just doesn't work as an album. The concepts are new, but not well put together and the songs usually languish for minutes at a time before actually getting to anything interesting.

Too late. I kinda agree though. However, "The Malkin Jewel" is bizarrely catchy in it's own hideous way. Incidentally, you're the reason that I gave post-Frances The Mute Mars Volta a shot, and I ended up liking more of that stuff than I thought it would.

I saw Daryl Hall, Allen Stone, and Sharon Jones live the other day, because I won tickets (actually I think I heard that there were so few entries that everyone "won", but yeah). The interesting thing is that this was apparently an offshoot of Daryl Hall's web series/tv show, and he uses the same house band as that, so there were no breaks between sets save a brief intermission, - it was all over in two hours but there was still plenty of actual music crammed into said two hours. I was not a fan of the Daryl Hall or Allen Stone parts of the evening, but Sharon Jones, who I had come to see, was great, and the second half of the show was kind of neat: They had all three singers on stage, taking verses or else singing backup on songs from each other's catalog. Plus there are maybe four or five Hall And Oates songs I secretly kind of like, and three of 'em were played during that set ("I Can't Go For That", "You Make My Dreams Come True", and "Every Time You Go Away"). I also witnessed some super-white dancing, not that I am one to talk. In conclusion, I don't think I would have paid 50 to 70 dollars to go, but I'm at least glad I showed up.

[jvcc]

I know it seems like I'm openly defying the "New" part of the title of this thread, because I am, but I've been listening to some of the Rolling Stones lately and I am enjoying them. I think that the problem with listening to bands which have become legends after the fact is that you will necessarily have a preconceived notion of what they sound like. I'm not good with musical terms, but some of their stuff sounds more bluesy or folksy and less rocksy than I expected.

I don't really like Lou Reed's solo stuff (as compared to when he was with the Velvet Underground), but I was listening to "Crazy Feeling" off of Coney Island Baby and was struck by the similarity of some of the lyrics to Bowie's "Queen Bitch" from Hunky Dory. I've read many times that "Queen Bitch" is an homage to Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground in general, but Hunky Dory came out in 1971 and Coney Island Baby wasn't released until 1975. I can't seem to find out if Reed borrowed lyrics from a song borrowing style from him or if he had written the song a long while before the album came out. It doesn't really matter, I just want to know. I want to trace the many and intersecting lines of influence amongst musical talents.

Speaking of many and intersecting lines of influence, I was listening to some of T.Rex because "Lady Stardust" is supposed to be about Marc Bolan (though I think it works equally well for Iggy--I am loving Funhouse at the moment, even the instrumental song). It may be too soon to make a pronouncement of any definitiveness, but I think that I like their earlier music more than their later, more glam music.

[James]

I don't really like Lou Reed's solo stuff

Not even Metal Machine Music?!

Incidentally, I don't think the "New" in the thread title refers to the age of the music, but rather the fact that there was already a music thread when this one was started, and I kicked up a minor fuss about it.

[jvcc]

I don't really like Lou Reed's solo stuff

Not even Metal Machine Music?!

Hurgh.

Incidentally, I don't think the "New" in the thread title refers to the age of the music, but rather the fact that there was already a music thread when this one was started, and I kicked up a minor fuss about it.

That does sound like something you'd do.

[James]

I'm all about minor fuss.

[jvcc]

I'll put that on your tombstone.

That sounds oddly threatening; I mean that I will after you have died of natural causes a long, long time from now.

I may as well ask this here as the question of NEW music has arisen, but if you had the choice, from this point onward, between only listening to music you've already heard and never listening to new music or only being able to listen to new music and nothing you've ever heard before, which would you choose? If you change the verbs around a bit this can be extended to include movies, television shows, art, etc. But music is the issue at hand here.

I would say, hands down, that I'd choose stuff that I've already heard.

[EvilJekyll]

To be honest either way I'd have a lot to choose from. I would probably choose the music I've listened to already, as that's probably around 30000 songs, and I have emotional connection to quite a few of them (the songs themselves, not a relation to emotional events tied to the songs.) This would be enough that I wouldn't be bored and can still listen to music that I know is awesome.

If I had to do it the other way, I would have a fairly large base to know what I would probably like and restart from there. Unless of course you mean to say that after one listen you can never hear it again. That would be fleeting joy...

Also, is anyone else into records? I was comparing my collection with my friend via discogs.com and actually realised the depth of my collection is up 71 of these vinyl discs. A fair amount of LPs and Singles/EPs and a pretty good dose of limiteds and/or coloureds.

[James]

That's a genuinely difficult question. A point of clarification: are we talking about an epochal cut-off between "old" and "new" music, or are we talking about the revoking of the ability to ever listen to anything twice? In the latter instance, I'd side with the music I know, as I think most of us would, although there is a definite case to be made for embracing transitivity (nothing lasts forever, so why try to prolong things at all?).

In the former instance, I'm incredibly conflicted. Judging by my miserable lack of commitment to music pretty much since leaving university (I barely attend any concerts, let alone discover new acts), you'd think I'd plump for the old favourites, but I'd be extremely hesitant to relinquish that rare delight when I do find something new and exciting, that reminds me that there are whole world's of unexplored opportunities out there. There's nothing quite like the first listen to something wonderful. I'm not sure I could turn my back on the music I already love, though.

[jvcc]

I mean that as of now, you would only be able to listen to something you had already listened to, but you could listen to it as often as you want to. If you choose new music, you can listen to that as often as you'd like, but never your old favorites.

I haven't been to a concert in years.

[EsBe]

As someone who works with people who listen to so-called "classic rock" (a genre containing, by my estimation, a mere 12 songs), only new stuff for me. Giving up the Beatles and SRV might be hard, but it's for the greater good.

[fanelian]

I would chose new music. Because I can always remember the old ones that I like - I know it's not the same as actually listening to it, but I wouldn't want to give up the opportunity to experience the pleasure of good new stuff. If it's a given that I will not only not be able to listen to the old stuff, but will aslo forget it... then it would become new to me anyway, right?

[ntw3001]

Hmm. I'd actually quite like to go with new music. I've already heard most of my old music many many times, and I'm rather tired of naturally reverting to the same artists I already know. It's pretty daunting to take in a large volume of new stuff without anything more familiar to retreat to on occasion (my current method is to listen to most new albums just one or two times, form an opinion and then never really come back to them, and past experience tells me that returning to those albums I've written off as 'two and a half stars; acceptable, better options exist' often yields good results), but I'm not opposed to the idea of building a new collection.

[James]

My fear is that, no longer being a teenager with a load of time and patience to dedicate to finding and properly assess albums and artists, I'd end up giving up on music altogether.

[jvcc]

My fear is that, no longer being a teenager with a load of time and patience to dedicate to finding and properly assess albums and artists, I'd end up giving up on music altogether.

I've never had that ability. The only reason that I'm listening to bands which are unfamiliar to me now is because I've lucked upon liking David Bowie and Iggy Pop, and so my anxiety about listening to new music is overridden by my desire to have comprehensive knowledge about my areas of interest; I'm mainly just trying to learn about their influences or any bands that they mention.

Oh, Iggy Pop and Nico from the Velvet Underground went out for a month. Is that well known? I thought it was interesting.

[Android Replica]

Oh, Iggy Pop and Nico from the Velvet Underground went out for a month. Is that well known? I thought it was interesting.

According to Iggy's book, it was she who got him hooked on heroin.

[EvilJekyll]

Oh, Iggy Pop and Nico from the Velvet Underground went out for a month. Is that well known? I thought it was interesting.

According to Iggy's book, it was she who got him hooked on heroin.

Did she also write TVU's "Heroin"? I know she was put on the album with them due to Andy Warhol.

[Android Replica]

Oh, Iggy Pop and Nico from the Velvet Underground went out for a month. Is that well known? I thought it was interesting.

According to Iggy's book, it was she who got him hooked on heroin.

Did she also write TVU's "Heroin"? I know she was put on the album with them due to Andy Warhol.

Nah, Lou Reed wrote Heroin...Nico didn't start writing her own songs until well after she was kicke--, um, persuaded to launch a solo career.

[Android Replica]

I mean that as of now, you would only be able to listen to something you had already listened to, but you could listen to it as often as you want to. If you choose new music, you can listen to that as often as you'd like, but never your old favorites.

How would that work with classical music? If I chose "new music only" and I've already heard Colin Davis' version of Symphonie Fantastique, could I listen to another conductor's version or would that violate the rules? The same might be asked of jazz.