| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| pixie punk |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 05:23:12
http://diffuser.fm/pixies-black-francis-interview-2013/
PUERTO RICO PIXIE |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| floop |
Posted - 12/06/2013 : 19:43:57
quote:
Originally posted by natenate101
quote:
Originally posted by peter radiator
quote:
Originally posted by natenate101
That's fine and dandy, but in the case of BF and Pixies, I don't want to believe that a manager has major say on band personnel decisions or when to release music if the band doesn't agree. These aren't newbies, the fellas know the way things work, and Charles specifically has managed a solo career pretty well based on his intuition and talent. In THIS case, I'm not keen on a manager doing anything other than, you know, managing the BUSINESS of the band. That said, I understand that the "business" of Pixies is bigger stakes, and that BF and co. want to ensure they maximize their opportunities to succeed. But if Charles is talking about recapturing that past innocence and edge, limiting the influence of a manager would seem like a logical step. Simplify, you know?
I gotcha.
You do realize that the Pixies had managers from very early in their career through their initial breakup and on through the reunion period, right?
And that FBF has had personal management throughout most if not all of his solo career, including the periods where he seemingly did just as he pleased and opted to record and lease his own master tapes to indie labels, including his own?
The points being merely that A) getting rid of a manager doesn't automatically "simplify" anything. Often, it makes things much more complicated for the artist, and B) professional management has played a key role in scores of FBF and Pixies-related decisions for decades.
Also, there's a big difference between someone in your employ explicitly doing something on your behalf that you don't agree with or authorize, and a performing artist (who's a restless seeker and a Snake to boot) merely voicing understandable doubts about a previously agreed upon direction and marketing plan, during a time of great stress and uncertainty in their public life.
Just sayin'.
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder
I said to "limit the influence", not fire a manager outright. Leave the music decisions up to the musicians. Again, if BF so badly wants to recreate that old feeling of life on the edge, there some simple things he could do it seems.
I'm well aware of the necessity/benefit of having a manager, and agent in relation to the business of music.
It's that "great stress and uncertainty" that makes me uneasy as a fan right now. It's 3rd world type problems of course, so I'm not shedding tears over this stuff. Just had an idea of how things were headed with the band, and now it's muddied a bit.
But yeah, more music please. As in sports, more on-field heroics and less off-field drama is preferred.
kind of agree with Nate, though i'm drunk
there's nothing saying that Pixies couldn't book smaller venues. for me no Pixies reunion show was better than the pre-Coachella gig at the Glasshouse (shout out to BLT who was there)
would be cool if they said 'fuck it' and just did smaller venues - maybe at a slightly higher cost. don know
i guess then there wouldn't be the major cash flow. can't have cake and eat it too?
i'm not even a fan but i heard an interview with the guy from Edward Sharpe and Magnetic Zeros on NPR and he was talking about how much of a drag the club / festival touring machine is. so they are doing their whole "Big Top" tent thing now, on their own terms. sounded pretty cool
 green star member since 2006. smb? |
| peter radiator |
Posted - 12/06/2013 : 06:39:01
Armx3,
Yepped.
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder |
| Arm Arm Arm |
Posted - 12/06/2013 : 06:26:16
quote:
Originally posted by peter radiator
I hate the cell phones as well, and the way their ubiquitous usage -- even at live concerts -- divorces everyone using them (and those standing nearby as well) from the "fury of the moment."
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder
For me,this extends into everyday interactions, there could be exceptions but it's annoying when someone is holding a conversation with me and texting at the same time. I don't like the divided attention.
Back to your point, while I don't understand how someone can be recording instead of rocking out, I am grateful to the people who have recorded amazing performances and shared them online. I don't miss the old days of scanning the back wall of an independent record shop in the hopes of finding an expensive bootleg videotape of dubious quality. Well, maybe I do miss the frisson of finding some long sought after performance but I'm much happier searching youtube. It's a live music lover's paradise!
But it is annoying if they obscure others' view to capture said performance.
|
| natenate101 |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 13:17:09
quote:
Originally posted by IBreed
it could still come out next week! i wouldn't expect any later than that though...
It seems to be the right time. |
| IBreed |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 12:57:44
it could still come out next week! i wouldn't expect any later than that though... |
| natenate101 |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 12:17:55
quote:
Originally posted by Jason
I think if the EPs were (or could be) a little more frequent, that might build more excitement.
My strongest suspicion about the wait for EP 2 is that it's due to some kind of production delay with the vinyl. Pressing and production surely started months ago (I wouldn't be surprised if it began prior to the release of EP-1), but if you buy vinyl frequently, you see delays a lot. Especially with independent label vinyl. Sometimes it's a problem with the vinyl, sometimes it's a problem with artwork, sometimes it's both. Records can take months longer than the expected completion date. The pressing plants are very busy these days.
For example, a record that I ordered last July that was supposed to ship in September is only just shipping now, due to hold ups at the pressing plant.
Yeah, makes sense. I still have no issue with the EP release model, just the frequency. If the new EP was released Sunday night, exactly 3 months after the first, I think it would worked well. But the Kim S news makes us all yearn for some music to push the rest to the side. 4 new tracks this week would've been fantastic, and it's kinda when I expected them to be released.
Ibreed, first world problems is correct, mistake on my part. |
| Jason |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 10:38:34
I think if the EPs were (or could be) a little more frequent, that might build more excitement.
My strongest suspicion about the wait for EP 2 is that it's due to some kind of production delay with the vinyl. Pressing and production surely started months ago (I wouldn't be surprised if it began prior to the release of EP-1), but if you buy vinyl frequently, you see delays a lot. Especially with independent label vinyl. Sometimes it's a problem with the vinyl, sometimes it's a problem with artwork, sometimes it's both. Records can take months longer than the expected completion date. The pressing plants are very busy these days.
For example, a record that I ordered last July that was supposed to ship in September is only just shipping now, due to hold ups at the pressing plant. |
| IBreed |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 08:58:01
*1st world problem.
anyway, we all knew this would happen. even (and i would argue *especially*) the staunch EP defenders of yore. there's a lack of momentum and reach using this model. it ultimately comes down to marketing, and despite whatever failings the LP might exhibit, it's still the model that allows for the biggest splash.
why not do something really fun? like a subscription model for EPs. sign up, new EP every other month. each EP is its own island of sound. different facets et all. or the band records an EP for release every 3 months, road testing the material in between. there are so many ways to exploit new release schedules/modes and create some sense of momentum and excitement. the internet provides an otherwise unavailable immediacy- look at my bloody valentine. they put out their album *as soon as it was finished* without much of any promotional hoopla. the pixies took a new technology and went down the most archaic and arbitrary route possible, all under the guise of being unbeholden to old models, while being exactly that!
pixies managers, ya blew it.
or maybe it's just entirely not possible to cultivate excitement given where they are in their careers. but i would offer the best of the pixies new material is more exciting than turns by relative contemporaries like pearl jam or the like. greens & blues, classic masher and indie cindy are unfuckwithable.
|
| natenate101 |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 05:53:31
quote:
Originally posted by peter radiator
natenate101,
I understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for the friendly discourse!
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder
Same here man! |
| peter radiator |
Posted - 12/04/2013 : 05:46:47
natenate101,
I understand where you're coming from.
Thanks for the friendly discourse!
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder |
| Discoking |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 21:30:28
quote:
Originally posted by peter radiator
And that FBF has had personal management throughout most if not all of his solo career, including the periods where he seemingly did just as he pleased and opted to record and lease his own master tapes to indie labels, including his own?
related anecdote: i've heard from a friend that charles used to present himself as "the manager of frank black" when he was on the phone with concert organisers.
on one occasion, an organiser saw through this, and replied with "oh, hi, charles!"
makes me smile.
 it's educational |
| natenate101 |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 20:59:40
quote:
Originally posted by peter radiator
quote:
Originally posted by natenate101
That's fine and dandy, but in the case of BF and Pixies, I don't want to believe that a manager has major say on band personnel decisions or when to release music if the band doesn't agree. These aren't newbies, the fellas know the way things work, and Charles specifically has managed a solo career pretty well based on his intuition and talent. In THIS case, I'm not keen on a manager doing anything other than, you know, managing the BUSINESS of the band. That said, I understand that the "business" of Pixies is bigger stakes, and that BF and co. want to ensure they maximize their opportunities to succeed. But if Charles is talking about recapturing that past innocence and edge, limiting the influence of a manager would seem like a logical step. Simplify, you know?
I gotcha.
You do realize that the Pixies had managers from very early in their career through their initial breakup and on through the reunion period, right?
And that FBF has had personal management throughout most if not all of his solo career, including the periods where he seemingly did just as he pleased and opted to record and lease his own master tapes to indie labels, including his own?
The points being merely that A) getting rid of a manager doesn't automatically "simplify" anything. Often, it makes things much more complicated for the artist, and B) professional management has played a key role in scores of FBF and Pixies-related decisions for decades.
Also, there's a big difference between someone in your employ explicitly doing something on your behalf that you don't agree with or authorize, and a performing artist (who's a restless seeker and a Snake to boot) merely voicing understandable doubts about a previously agreed upon direction and marketing plan, during a time of great stress and uncertainty in their public life.
Just sayin'.
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder
I said to "limit the influence", not fire a manager outright. Leave the music decisions up to the musicians. Again, if BF so badly wants to recreate that old feeling of life on the edge, there some simple things he could do it seems.
I'm well aware of the necessity/benefit of having a manager, and agent in relation to the business of music.
It's that "great stress and uncertainty" that makes me uneasy as a fan right now. It's 3rd world type problems of course, so I'm not shedding tears over this stuff. Just had an idea of how things were headed with the band, and now it's muddied a bit.
But yeah, more music please. As in sports, more on-field heroics and less off-field drama is preferred. |
| peter radiator |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 20:06:08
quote:
Originally posted by natenate101
That's fine and dandy, but in the case of BF and Pixies, I don't want to believe that a manager has major say on band personnel decisions or when to release music if the band doesn't agree. These aren't newbies, the fellas know the way things work, and Charles specifically has managed a solo career pretty well based on his intuition and talent. In THIS case, I'm not keen on a manager doing anything other than, you know, managing the BUSINESS of the band. That said, I understand that the "business" of Pixies is bigger stakes, and that BF and co. want to ensure they maximize their opportunities to succeed. But if Charles is talking about recapturing that past innocence and edge, limiting the influence of a manager would seem like a logical step. Simplify, you know?
I gotcha.
You do realize that the Pixies had managers from very early in their career through their initial breakup and on through the reunion period, right?
And that FBF has had personal management throughout most if not all of his solo career, including the periods where he seemingly did just as he pleased and opted to record and lease his own master tapes to indie labels, including his own?
The points being merely that A) getting rid of a manager doesn't automatically "simplify" anything. Often, it makes things much more complicated for the artist, and B) professional management has played a key role in scores of FBF and Pixies-related decisions for decades.
Also, there's a big difference between someone in your employ explicitly doing something on your behalf that you don't agree with or authorize, and a performing artist (who's a restless seeker and a Snake to boot) merely voicing understandable doubts about a previously agreed upon direction and marketing plan, during a time of great stress and uncertainty in their public life.
Just sayin'.
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder |
| natenate101 |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 19:40:15
quote:
Originally posted by peter radiator
quote:
Originally posted by natenate101
I hate hearing about a manager's influence, especially with a band like this and in this modern age of the music industry.
natenate101,
Band managers are not all greedy ogres or shortsighted dipshits, and not all musicians are shrewd businesspeople.
In fact, most career musicians I know are either horrible businesspeople, or decent businesspeople who simply do not want to let the minutiae of commerce intrude upon their creative process.
It bums them out, and takes up a lot of their energy dealing with promoters, PR flacks, travel agents, attorneys, record label toadies, music mag hacks and other folks of the general schmuck variety.
So, they either want or truly need someone to be that buffer between their wishes and the bargaining tables/infuriating phone calls/busy work that goes into being a recording and/or touring act.
Often, when artists themselves are left to their own devices, they strike horrible deals for themselves, make shortsighted decisions based on emotion and pride, and generally speaking, sabotage their own careers.
Now, there are PLENTY of managers who are various levels of incompetent nincompoops who are good at blowing enough smoke up an artist's ass to get themselves hired, but then drop the ball or simply offer bad advice when the time comes -- and LOADS of street-smart, capable artists who love and excel at running the business side of their own careers and for whom a manager would be completely redundant.
All they need to do is hire an independent PR person and maybe a personal assistant to deal with paperwork, and they're good to go. Trusting themselves works out well most if not all of the time.
I, of course, have absolutely no idea if the Pixies current manager is a benefit to them, but as everyone in the band is extremely intelligent and have certainly been around both sides of the block in ways that many bands never have (and never will), I am willing to bet they would not sign with someone whom they did not feel was at least their equal in that department, and whom they felt comfortable with putting in that position.
Just because the current state of the music biz seems on the surface to make it much easier for some types of musicians to get their recordings to the public without using the standard record label-as-gatekeepers model, that does not inherently mean that the days of acts needing dedicated managers and agents is an anachronism.
Truth is, with so many more people now fancying themselves as "recording artists" and "touring acts," without the experience to navigate the established pitfalls of such roles on their own, there may be a far greater need for competent representation now than in even the recent past.
Just some food for thought...
(Not being snarky, just verbose.)
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder
That's fine and dandy, but in the case of BF and Pixies, I don't want to believe that a manager has major say on band personnel decisions or when to release music if the band doesn't agree. These aren't newbies, the fellas know the way things work, and Charles specifically has managed a solo career pretty well based on his intuition and talent. In THIS case, I'm not keen on a manager doing anything other than, you know, managing the BUSINESS of the band. That said, I understand that the "business" of Pixies is bigger stakes, and that BF and co. want to ensure they maximize their opportunities to succeed. But if Charles is talking about recapturing that past innocence and edge, limiting the influence of a manager would seem like a logical step. Simplify, you know?
|
| Jason |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 19:23:15
I like the interview. What some see as negative, I just see as human. |
| peter radiator |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 18:25:55
quote:
Originally posted by natenate101
I hate hearing about a manager's influence, especially with a band like this and in this modern age of the music industry.
natenate101,
Band managers are not all greedy ogres or shortsighted dipshits, and not all musicians are shrewd businesspeople.
In fact, most career musicians I know are either horrible businesspeople, or decent businesspeople who simply do not want to let the minutiae of commerce intrude upon their creative process.
It bums them out, and takes up a lot of their energy dealing with promoters, PR flacks, travel agents, attorneys, record label toadies, music mag hacks and other folks of the general schmuck variety.
So, they either want or truly need someone to be that buffer between their wishes and the bargaining tables/infuriating phone calls/busy work that goes into being a recording and/or touring act.
Often, when artists themselves are left to their own devices, they strike horrible deals for themselves, make shortsighted decisions based on emotion and pride, and generally speaking, sabotage their own careers.
Now, there are PLENTY of managers who are various levels of incompetent nincompoops who are good at blowing enough smoke up an artist's ass to get themselves hired, but then drop the ball or simply offer bad advice when the time comes -- and LOADS of street-smart, capable artists who love and excel at running the business side of their own careers and for whom a manager would be completely redundant.
All they need to do is hire an independent PR person and maybe a personal assistant to deal with paperwork, and they're good to go. Trusting themselves works out well most if not all of the time.
I, of course, have absolutely no idea if the Pixies current manager is a benefit to them, but as everyone in the band is extremely intelligent and have certainly been around both sides of the block in ways that many bands never have (and never will), I am willing to bet they would not sign with someone whom they did not feel was at least their equal in that department, and whom they felt comfortable with putting in that position.
Just because the current state of the music biz seems on the surface to make it much easier for some types of musicians to get their recordings to the public without using the standard record label-as-gatekeepers model, that does not inherently mean that the days of acts needing dedicated managers and agents is an anachronism.
Truth is, with so many more people now fancying themselves as "recording artists" and "touring acts," without the experience to navigate the established pitfalls of such roles on their own, there may be a far greater need for competent representation now than in even the recent past.
Just some food for thought...
(Not being snarky, just verbose.)
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder |
| natenate101 |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 15:45:46
quote:
Originally posted by Jose Jones
that's just a classic example of a frank black interview. not sure why it makes some of you uneasy. it actually gives me hope that they'll just say "fuck all the marketing" and just pound out some great tours and albums. and, if the Pixies can't do that, maybe he'll get some of the guys back together and play frank songs to frank fans in shitty clubs like the good ol days.
------------------------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown.
It makes me uneasy because of how quick the tone of the interviews have shifted. His responses on twitter have done the same. At this point, as long as we still get to hear the new music they've recorded and the band continues, I couldn't care less who the bass player is really. I'm just leery of all this momentum dying out and resulting in an implosion due to outside forces like shitty managers or whatever.
It's not like BF's comments are laced with confidence or a "fuck you" attitude. I'm reading some uncertainty, especially with that comment of "someone in our camp" not liking this or that but him thinking the new stuff is going ok. Just bums me out a bit after things have progressed so seemingly smooth since Bagboy. This Kim S thing just clouds things.
That said, I'm always of the opinion that good music trumps everything. Like others have mentioned, just get the new stuff released and let the fans hear it. Curious now whether they are re-recording anything based on the response to EP-1? Also, whether BF has been writing since the tour started?
I hate hearing about a manager's influence, especially with a band like this and in this modern age of the music industry. |
| Sprite |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 15:32:22
I'm picking up a lot of angst in that interview which I consider to be a good thing. |
| matto |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 15:18:28
Kudos peter. I'm in a similar boat as you and it was encouraging to read that.
--------
baby poop, curry |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 15:14:55
Pete, you always seem to put things the way I wish I could. Whether you're right or wrong, I bow to your superior fan-boardmanship. Polish that a hair and you've got an editorial worthy of any top name rock mag, on or offline.
Dial 1-888-RIB-CAGE for your free Bag Boy instruction manual. |
| Jose Jones |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 14:39:53
that's just a classic example of a frank black interview. not sure why it makes some of you uneasy. it actually gives me hope that they'll just say "fuck all the marketing" and just pound out some great tours and albums. and, if the Pixies can't do that, maybe he'll get some of the guys back together and play frank songs to frank fans in shitty clubs like the good ol days.
------------------------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown. |
| peter radiator |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 10:10:28
I really feel for FBF.
I too would have loved for the Pixies to have gotten into a van and played a bunch of secret club shows (which is the only way such a thing could likely have worked) -- ideally booked under fake names, so that the only folks who'd have been there were the ones who took a chance on something new and unproven and lucked out -- just like I did back in the fall of 1987 with COME ON PILGRIM.
When the Velvet Underground reunited briefly in 1993, they only played Europe before splitting up again.
During that short run, they headlined large theaters of a few thousand people each, and opened up a few shows in stadiums for U2. The crowds were ecstatic at each and every gig and the general perception was that the tour was a phenomenal "success", whatever that means.
Around the same time, the Dutch indie rock band Bettie Serveert, who'd been heavily influenced by the VU, worked up a whole set's worth of Velvets tunes and played them for one night only at the Paradiso club in Amsterdam, which holds roughly 1,500 people standing.
A live record was made that night and later released as a limited edition CD.
Moe Tucker, the Velvets' drummer, told me that after she heard that Bettie Serveert record, she actually broke down and cried.
She mistakenly assumed the Paradiso held around 400 people, and she said that when the VU reunited, all she wanted to do was to go play 300 - 500 capacity clubs, just like they used to before they broke up in 1969. That's what she lobbied for, but Lou Reed and John Cale reflexively insisted on going for what they felt was "the brass ring."
She said, "That's exactly the way we should have done it. That's rock and roll. In a small club, with everybody pressed right up on you, and you can't hide behind anything. You have to play it and mean it like your whole life depends on it."
It sounds like at least in part, what FBF laments is the lack of a certain kind of risk in these shows (although there is certainly a risk involved, considering a new lineup and introducing so much unproven material into the sets).
I mean, how weird must it be for your VERY FIRST band to become ten times more famous and valuable when broken up than they ever were when they were first together?
And then to find yourself locked into some incredibly lucrative but soul-suckingly freaky Groundhog Day career arc mainly because one of the members simply put their foot down and petulantly refused to even try to write new material for fear of tarnishing their reputation?
At some point, your reputation becomes "the band that's afraid to write new songs," even if the majority of the group doesn't automatically fall into that category...
I think what FBF loved most about the Catholics was the fact that they were not sheltered on the road. They "proved it all night," as Springsteen said -- and they proved it as well during load-in and during load-out, as a DIY gang.
If he was hoping that having new material in the sets and on record (no matter how great) would bring back that feel to Pixies shows, it likely won't, because it likely can't.
Why not?
Because 2013 is the shittiest fucked-up bizarro world version of 1987 that ever existed, and 2014 will be an even shittier, fucked-up version.
I hate the cell phones as well, and the way their ubiquitous usage -- even at live concerts -- divorces everyone using them (and those standing nearby as well) from the "fury of the moment."
I hate the fact that record shops don't really exist in a meaningful way worldwide anymore, and that an ever-growing demographic view recorded music as something that should be handed to them for free (albeit without nice and/or clever packaging).
I hate that ticket prices have skyrocketed due in part to that fucking horseshit.
I hate that the same confluence of energy and ambition and wide-eyed, campfire naivety that fueled the Pixies' initial, frenetic ascent of the "alternative rock" intelligentsia also contributed to their premature demise as a functional group.
I hate that tons of people walk into a Pixies show post 2004 with an entire set of expectations and biases that would NEVER have existed if the band had not flamed out and split up in the way they did back in the early '90s.
But I really hope he and the rest of the band find a way to persevere.
Having the Pixies back on the road showcasing and releasing new material is one of the very few things that has brought a sense of true joy and creative inspiration to my life for about as long as I can remember.
If FBF or anyone else in the band reads this, I want them all to know that despite how it may feel to them right now onstage and off, they're doing great work in my mind (and in others' as well), and a huge swath of us will be sticking by them and making them feel welcome (and fairly remunerated) for as long as they want to clock in and make the kind of art they make together.
~ Peter Radiator
"Real music is out there and real people are making it." ~ Webb Wilder |
| IBreed |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 08:13:36
i agree with everyone here. EP1 effectively exists to justify this tour as not being a "reunion money run". why would there be momentum or excitement over that? there's so much hesitation, and rock n roll (especially the pixies) is all about being bold, not faint. |
| Arm Arm Arm |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 08:06:58
HIs career, up to and even during the reunion has been about going forwards, releasing new work. Maybe it's because this is the first time he's returned to something and started it up again. |
| Grotesque |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 07:56:33
Yeah youre right the strange thing is them being precious about it. It's so unusual to a frank black fan, we're all used to the 'it's all disco' formula. All this hesitation sounds way too whinny. BF must be angry about it, but he's also a part of it. |
| johnnyribcage |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 07:14:51
quote:
Originally posted by Brank_Flack
I think part of the problem of feeling like he isn't riding the wave, but is still in a "pixies appreciation society" might be somewhat solved by actually releasing the material instead of being so precious about it. They recorded around 20 songs a year ago, and 5 have been released. Release the new songs, play more of them, and then you'll be back to the write/record cycle. That's how a wave gets started.
Good call. I'm really not sure why they're sitting on all that stuff. Just put it out there and move on - it seems he's really never sat on new recordings like this before. I guess the Sunday Sunny recordings maybe. Weird. The whole this is super weird. I just hope the tour doesn't get shit-canned.
Dial 1-888-RIB-CAGE for your free Bag Boy instruction manual. |
| Brank_Flack |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 07:08:08
I think part of the problem of feeling like he isn't riding the wave, but is still in a "pixies appreciation society" might be somewhat solved by actually releasing the material instead of being so precious about it. They recorded around 20 songs a year ago, and 5 have been released. Release the new songs, play more of them, and then you'll be back to the write/record cycle. That's how a wave gets started. |
| Grotesque |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 07:03:08
quote:
Originally posted by natenate101
Where did this thing start feel so negative? It seems like interviews done in late November have a much more cynical tone that the earlier interviews since the tour started. What has happened to change the vibe so much?
I dont feel this negative at all. It sounds more like the old BF interviews, a mix of humor and anger, like his songs. Pixies has never been a hippie band! |
| The Champ |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 06:50:44
Guess he doesn't like the pressure of being a top band to see. |
| natenate101 |
Posted - 12/03/2013 : 06:28:26
Where did this thing start feel so negative? It seems like interviews done in late November have a much more cynical tone that the earlier interviews since the tour started. What has happened to change the vibe so much? |
|
|
