LCD Soundsystem

I'm really kind of upset because I'd think this group would be my favorite band ever - they combine my two favorite genres - dance/electronic and alternative. But the outcome isn't so great... or as great as I would have liked it. I like really loud music with a good beat, but I feel like all of the songs are very quiet, and none of the beats are in your face - the way I like it. I first thing I like to hear when I click on a song is a killer beat or tune. That is honestly all I care about in a song...But that's an overstatement. But I just feel like with most of their songs, you can easily tune out. And that's frustrating for me. I think this band could've been an even bigger success if their beats were a little louder and crazier - they really played it safe with many of their songs. You could then say, "Well maybe some of their fans wouldn't like them if their music was louder." And that could be true. But I would personally like them louder and crazier. Their beats just sound generic. But maybe they were the ones who originally came up with these beats and everyone else copied them. I know I have been complaining a little too much, but I have one more complaint. They sound too much like the All-American Rejects. I don't like All-American Rejects. I can't really describe it, but it is that boy-bandish sound that I really despise.

One song that kind of meets my standards is "Thrills."

 

Commercials working in the favor of artists

Commercials are like the gateway to Stardom for new or undiscovered artists. By putting their song in a commercial as the background music, it allows people to discover their music without having to do anything - they just have to watch tv. Plus, many commercials are repeated numerous times, so the song will then be stuck in the viewers head, and thus, leading them to look up the song and discover the artist. This is exactly what happened just the other day and many other times to me. I was watching something on hulu or something and a commercial for windows popped up with a really really catchy song. It sounded a lot like One Republic, so I was excited because their latest album wasn't too great for me. So I looked it up. And it turned out to be a guy named Blake Lewis, who happened to be the runner up on American Idol a few years back. I was kind of shocked, but kind of intrigued.

I then began to think of all the other commercials that led me to songs. I know that I was led to the song "Radioactive" by Imagine Dragons a couple months ago by a commercial, but I'm not sure which one it was. A Microsoft commercial led me to Alex Clare's song "Too Close."

 

Another Microsoft commercial led me to Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' song "Can't Hold Us.

 

 

This one is from many years ago, but the song "New Soul" became very popular from this Mac commercial.

Those are only just a few examples, but commercials are the perfect way to get your name out there. Plus, you get paid for the use of your song. You can't lose in this situations - though maybe you can, I'm not sure what is written in the fine print......

Nirvana vs. Smashing Pumpkins

Both Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins excel in certain areas and lack in others. Nirvana, I think, is vocally stronger than the Smashing Pumpkins. But, the Smashing Pumpkins is instrumentally stronger than Nirvana. From what I've seen so far, the lyrics from both bands are so-so. I think the songs made by the Smashing Pumpkins have a little more of a variety, sound wise, but that isn't a huge factor that separates the two bands because some people like one sound and only one sound. When listening to Nirvana's "Nevermind," I feel like it's one of those albums where you have to be in a happy and energetic mood to enjoy it. Otherwise, it could seem rather loud and annoying. I think it's a fantastic album that is strong, entertaining and aggressive, which is something that the 80's definitely lacked. But at the same time, a lot of their songs are the same. Same, loud sound. And that can get annoying. Now for the Smashing Pumpkins. They ARE much more diverse with their songs, but are they as entertaining to me? I don't really know. Nirvana's loud music can definitely hold my attention, but sometimes quieter songs lose me - it just depends. The Smashing Pumpkin's songs are much quieter, not just their sound, but the over all volume of the album. Regardless of what volume Nirvana's "Nevermind" is played at, it will always seem super loud. But the Smashing Pumpkins have some killer instrumentalists. Everything is so coordinated, especially the drumming, it is so clear and clean cut, you can easily pick out the guitar or drums - it isn't just mush. Like "Nevermind's" hidden track. That was AWFUL. I feel like they just took the outtakes from every song and threw them together and that's what they got. I hope they don't do that in any of their other albums.

One thing I found really interesting was one of the genres allmusic.com classified the Smashing Pumpkins into. It is a genre called Noise Pop. And their definition of it was the funniest thing.
Noise Pop: pop music wrapped in barbed-wire kisses of feedback, dissonance, and abrasion. I think Nirvana would be considered more Noise Pop-y than the Smashing Pumpkins, but they weren't.

Probably my favorite Smashing Pumpkins song off their album "Gish" would definitely be "Daydream."

It is really soft, yet has this underlying power that comes through with the instruments and the voice of the singer. The singer kind of sounds like the lead singer in The Silversun Pickups, which isn't my favorite band, but I don't mind it in this song.

Sources: http://www.allmusic.com/style/noise-pop-ma0000012156

Milo Greene

Milo Greene is a recent band that released it's first album this past year titled Milo Greene. The band has a folky sound similar to that of Of Monsters and Men. It has a slight pop-sound, but it is very minimal and non-assertive. They have a quiet sound that sounds very natural and unforced. All Music called their sound, "organic and honest." The lead singer, Marlana Sheetz, has a very simplistic voice that almost sounds like a lullaby. Though they have only produced one album, the band has built quite a reputation in these past few months. My favorite song of theirs so far is "1957."

"1957"

Some of my other favorites are:

"Don't You Give Up on Me"

"Son My Son"

"Polaroid"

One thing you don't really see these days are short songs under 1:30. And this is the second album that I have seen where there are about 4 songs with their time under 1:30. I also saw it on One Republic's new album Native. So who knows, maybe short songs are the new thing.

Nirvana and Nine Inch Nails

When I heard the name "Nirvana" or "Nine Inch Nails," I used to think they were bands that were serious, hard-core rock bands that were on the verge of becoming metal groups, which in a sense could be true. I used to think that they would be really bad, loud rock groups. But when the first Nine Inch Nail's song was played, I was like, "Wait, I actually know this song. And I REALLY like it." It shocked me to think that I actually knew and liked this artist. And when more and more songs from the group and Nirvana were played, I knew many, if not all of the songs. Side Note: Knowing the song before we listen to it in class on it's album is much more captivating and attention-holding because you can sing along with the song and re-analyze, where as when the first time you hear it, you are just trying to keep up with the melody and rhythm. Anyways, it was interesting to me that I knew a bunch songs and lyrics, but I didn't know one single title or artist of the songs. Mainly because I had heard them on the radio. But regardless, I really enjoy their music. They are upbeat, which is a huge plus for me because that way they are attention-holding. Plus I really enjoy the two groups lead singers voice. Its very raspy/rough and it can be found in all of their songs - it's like their signature. I also really love their beats and I feel like the drummer, especially in Nirvana is really talented and adds a lot to every song. I really like their song "Lake of Fire." It is more laid-back than most of their songs, but it still has that sound of strain and roughness. I also really enjoy the first lyrics of the song because even though they aren't super original, I feel like they are worded really well.

Where do bad folks go when they die
They don't go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
See them again 'till the Fourth of July

They also sound great live and look like a great concert to see. In the video we watched, they all looked out of it, yet they still performed really well. And when the bassist threw up his guitar, and lost it in the lights, that is just such a funny situation. I'm surprised that hasn't happen to other artists, but then again, I guess not many throw their basses into the air and try to catch it again.

With Nine Inch Nails, my favorite song so far is most-definitely "Head Like a Hole." I'm not as familiar with them as I am with Nirvana, but now that I know their music and that I actually like their sound, I will look into them. One thing I really enjoy about Nine Inch Nails is they have a slight Hair Metal sound that I think makes it a little more dance/Michael Jackson-y rather than pure, hard, rock n roll.

Though these bands are both talented, they are some of the creepiest bands I have ever seen. Like Nine Inch Nail's video for "Head Like a Hole" is one of the weirdest/creepiest things. And both bands have really interesting looks, which I assume were popular in the 90's, but they are so creepy looking. But it's not the way you look that determines the amount of talent you have, that's for sure.

And I thought I'd add this little video. It might make you loathe this song afterwards, but I have to give the creators props for finding the connection between the two songs.

Head Like a Hole/Call Me Maybe

N.W.A. and music trends.

Well, lets start off with N.W.A. Definitely an interesting group. I think they are something...different...especially for the time period in which they performed. They were very out there - both lyrically and with their beats. I usually don't care what the lyrics say in songs, as long as I can sing along to them. But with this group, they go a little overboard with the cuss words. Which is a real shame. They, out of all the hip-hop groups we listened to, had the greatest beats. There is just something morally wrong - to me anyway - to be singing harsh, vulgar words throughout every line of a song.

Something that really sparked my interest was when Mr. A commented that N.W.A and some of the other groups could be categorized as "punk" hip-hop artists. I think that was completely correct and a really great comparison because that is exactly what N.W.A. was. Like I said in one of my earlier blogs, to me, punk is an attitude, a perspective of something. It is rebellious. Like The Clash, N.W.A. has similar rebellious titles, except their are just a little more vulgar:

"F*** the Police"

"Express Yourself"

"Parental Discretion Iz Advised"

"Protest"

All of these titles express encouragement or ideas of rebellion. It also made me question the fact that music kind of goes through life cycles. Plenty of other things go through life cycles, even if we don't notice it or even if they aren't actually "alive." Trends in clothing, for example. High-waisted clothing was popular a good 20-30 years ago. Guess what is popular and trending today? High-waisted shorts. Of course there are some improvements to the trend - new patterns and designs, but that is besides the point. The point is that the "life cycle" repeated. The same could be said for music. There was soft, sweet, cheery music in the 50's-early 60's. Then, we went to the louder, crazier stuff. Then we hit "punk" and rebellion. Then we hit, happy, make-you-feel-good hair-metal. Now we have loud and rebellious hip-hop. That kind of makes me think we might hit some softer, more tone-downed genres in the 90's. I know you think I should know music from the 90's, but I don't. And that's why I'm in this class. This general pattern has sort of continued through music, though their have been some adjustments to each genre every time it is repeated. I think it just goes back to the idea that we get sick of things and we want something "new." But really it's just recycled music made into something different.

Susanne Sundfor

Susanne Sundfor is a Norwegian singer-songwriter who began her career in the mid 2000's. She has a delicate and gentle-sounding voice that is usually accompanied by a powerful or upbeat sound, though she does have some slower songs. I really find her voice very different from most artists. It is so powerful, but it such a discrete and gentle way. She shows her power through her vocal range, rather than raising the volume of her voice. Her voice could sort of be compared to Ellie Goulding's, but she does not have as many slides or vocal changes or whatever you want to call - she doesn't have as many of those in her songs. In her earlier albums, like the one she released in 2007, the songs are much softer than some of the newer ones, where she is singing with other artists.

"I Resign"

But just this past week, she released a single with M83, and I happen to be very fond of that group. But the song really was meant for her voice. It has a fabulously addicting beat, very dramatic - it sort of has "the world is ending in slow motion" sound. I can really imagine it playing during a dystopian scene of a movie. Anyways, I feel like this danger mood/feeling really does magic for her voice and vice versa. It was like the song was made for her. Plus the piano at the end is really subtle and well placed. After all of that, I have failed to provide you with the name of the song. It is called "Oblivion."

"Oblivion"

 

She also has this other song that I am really enjoying called "Running to the Sea." It has a similar sound to "Oblivion." What I like about it is the fact that it has power and a good beat, but it's not in your face - it's subtle.

 

Though I'm not really into her older music, I really love her new stuff and I can't wait to see what she comes out with next.

SNL documentary - I'm not really sure what it is actually called.

Though I have never once watched SNL, I have heard about it's wonderful humor and musical performances. Based on what I saw through the small snippets of certain segments today, it seems to me that the older SNL's were based more on the music and incorporated the humor into the music. Where as the SNL's produced today focus more on the humor, rather than the music.

I think the skit with Beethtoven singing What I'd Say was quite brilliant. They created humor by using the two amazing artists and their disabilities - Ray Charles was blind, Beethtoven was deaf. Though it could be taken very offensively, which it is, it is still quite funny.

I also really really enjoyed Joe Cocker's performance when the impersonator guy, John Belushi, was dressed like Cocker and imitated him. But I really can't stand Cocker's voice. It may have once been good, but it just sounds like he is grunting and groaning. Plus, I was shocked to see that he was only 32. ONLY 32! He looked at least 60.

My goodness and the faces he is capable of are just incredible. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone make such unattractive faces before!

I also really loved when the guy (I'm not sure if it was Belushi or not) came out in a pink suit and spoke in the accent about the penguins. It was so random, or at least it was to me. It may have had some relevant, hidden meaning, but all I got out of it was humor. And his impersonation of Elvis Presley with the lip movements, was great. Spot on.

I thought the Simon and Garfunkel performance was good, and I loved how Elvis Costello decided that he wasn't going to comply with his managers and sing "Less Than Zero." Overall, I thought the show gave a great insight into what music and performances were like back in the 70's. I definitely would love to see more of the show now.