| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cult_Of_Frank
= Black Noise Maker =
Canada
11687 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2006 : 08:11:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face
I think that at a certain point you must, in a discussion of any pop star, seperate the 'song' from the 'performer.' For instance, i think that "Toxic" by Ms. Spears is a great pop song - it is well produced with a good beat, a hook that sticks in your head for hours and is sung well enough. That being said, if anyone with a decent female voice in that range sang it, it would be good - it has nothing to do with Ms. Spears' inflection, style or treatment of the song. So, in that case - performance eh, song good.
I never really understood why 'rock' fans get so mad at pop stars doing well* - as if it somehow poorly affects people like Frank Black or Pavement or Radiohead. It is a totally different audience - i doubt many people will walk into a store this fall and debate the new Justin Timberlake record and the new Thom Yorke (i will, but i have a soft spot for Timberlake's first solo record). What i get more angry about is shit bands like Creed and Limp Bizkit and Nickelback (sorry Dean!) taking up 'rock' radio with their terribly lame version of rock and roll.
*I understand the ethics of being pissed off at a talentless person making money while Chris Whitley dies almost penniless, but MTV is the place for Spears, just as your local modern rock station should be the place for the Arcade Fire - and it is the fault of schlock rock bands, not pop stars that it isn't so. Of course this doesn't apply to me, because New York City and the surrounding metro area don't have a modern rock station anymore.
-Brian
Please don't apologize to me for Nickleback. I apologize, on behalf of Canada, to you. We've discussed this, you and I, so you know my feelings on, for example Toxic, but for the benefit of third parties, I too think the song is catchy and has elements I like. BUT I don't like it in a way that remotely corresponds to my appreciation of bands out there not being commercially manufactured. "Paint by numbers" _is_ what we're talking about here because when these professional song writers set out to pen the next Britney/whoever song, they think, "What'll sell? What's hot right now?". For me, this is wholly separate from someone having a sound or something in their head they want to express and creating without putting it through the 'what sells' filter.
My frustration is from the fact that we live in a world where the norm is this shallow stuff and better things are largely ignored. I think that it does affect things because if more people in the industry were willing to give airplay to something that sounded new and interesting, music as a whole, doubtless even commercial music, would not become stuck in derivative cycles ala the current glut of Nickleback kNockoffs. Find your own damn sound, don't say, "Here's what they did, let's do the exact same thing."
/rant.
 "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." |
 |
|
|
Broken Face
-= Forum Pistolero =-
USA
5155 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 08:29:24
|
I agree with you in principle, but i still think that good songs can come out of genre-stealing, or trend following. The paint by numbers approach is frustrating to someone trying to make their own way in the music world, but i think that the ends justify the means always in the songwriting world. If the song is good, that overrides any part of its construction.
I think it is often easy to forget that until Buddy Holly, and more so the Beatles, Stones and Kinks, the standards for pop songs were as follows: people write the song, give it to others to record. Places like the Brill Building in NYC would account for 1/2-2/3 of the hits of the time, and the people were often churning out 5-10 songs a week. So really, the process of an artist writing/recording their own stuff is a relatively new phenomenon.
Of course i no doubt respect Frank Black infinitely more than Britney Spears or Creed, but if one of the later two could put a good song on the radio, i'm ok with that. I prefer songwriters who perform, but there have been some great performers in the day who rarely wrote (Sinatra, Elvis, loads of Motown artists, most pop hits from the late 50s/early 60s).
-Brian
|
|
|
|
Chris Knight
= Cult of Ray =
USA
899 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 11:36:14
|
my 2 cents:
Frank's records are unsuccessful because they are meant for discerning listeners. For regular Joes, music is primarily a soundtrack for socializing and forming human culture. This isn't a bad thing; if everyone was an avid music lover, humans would probably become extinct.
Personally, I try (keyword there) to enjoy music heedless of its particular inspirations and motives. And no artist's work is 100% bereft of measures taken to ensure appeasement of its intended audience, whether that audience ranges in the thousands or millions. |
|
|
|
Mad Lucas
- FB Fan -
Australia
146 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 06:32:23
|
How would people here rate Devils Workshop vs Ok Computer head to head? Are You Heading My Way vs Exit Music?
forget about wanting to like unpopular music for a second
Theres a bit too much interpretation coming from the 'people's tastes suck' comment, which was probably said in jest. Radiohead, for an example are extremely popular (at least in relation to Frank) but it's not to do with sugar coating their music, following any kind of verse/chorus type formula or comming out of generica.
Frank isn't popular in a huge way, because as mentioned, you can't really listen to his stuff in the backgroud, or pick up girls with it on in the car, whatever. But bands can be good, and popular, they may have just struck a chord with those willing to take the time to listen, they may have marketed well, and they may play in a style which either denies, or crosses musical classifications.
http://s7.invisionfree.com/Super_Happy_Site
Perhaps the greatest forum on earth |
|
|
|
Carl
- A 'Fifth' Catholic -
Ireland
11546 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 07:24:36
|
Radiohead are a rare case of a band who seem to get more obscure with each album, yet, even when they're not having the big hits, people are aware of them and have a lot of respect for them, or at least that's the impression I get. I'm sure they sell out everywhere-the Dublin gig with Beck sold out a while ago, I think, for one!
 |
|
|
|
vanishing_spy
- FB Fan -
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 14:31:41
|
All good points. Remember, Radiohead had HUGE commercial success with Creep. They did the MTV thing immediately. I remember reading an article at the time in which Thom Yorke was quoted as saying "We're in it for the money" and, like Weezer originally, didn't plan on sticking it out and making album after album as a band. Like Weezer they stayed together because they were commercially successful. Maybe they also had great songwriters and, luckily, they had the Pixies to rip off for a while until they found their own sound.
But Frank did this to himself. He was never willing to lip sync in his videos or let a stylist dress him or any of the other things that labels want you to do. I personally think this was a mistake. If you're making great music, make yourself accessible. we love him for being an individual but I'll be honest and say that when I first saw what Black Francis looked like he was nothing like what I imagined and I was a little disappointed. But then I told myself "wait, it's cool that he's just a normal guy" so I kept listening. A lot of other people would have tuned out at that point because they expect their rock stars to "look the part". Anyway, I kept listening and I know my musical taste is more mature because I'm a FB fan. If he had been willing to play the game with the publicists and MTV without comprimising his music he could have positively influenced millions of kids who would now be buying the albums of good bands instead of bands like Creed.(ugh!)
The fact is some people are intellectuals and will make their own choices. Others (the majority of people) are followers and will like what you tell them to like.
|
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 14:37:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by vanishing_spy
But Frank did this to himself. He was never willing to lip sync in his videos or let a stylist dress him or any of the other things that labels want you to do.
I'm pretty sure he was lip-syncing in the Alec Eiffel video...and as for all those stylistic pictures in the Yellow album (on that one record label) booklet, I'm sure those clothes aren't in his personal closet.
Hank the 8th was a duplicated man
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
oktay
- FB Fan -
11 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 14:56:27
|
I have given Pixies and Frank Black albums to a lot of people. Some like them, some don't. Big surprise there. Although I do think that their tastes are lame, compared to my own taste, I do suspect that it's probably not so. Their tastes are just different. And there has been a time when I was listening to stuff that I find lame now. so. there.
oktay |
|
|
|
vanishing_spy
- FB Fan -
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 15:08:30
|
Transmarine-----
No offense at all but your response was sort of disingenuous. You know what I meant. A couple of photos in the yellow album (which weren't flattering...my point exactly) and lip-syncing into a wind machine in Alec Eiffel doesn't refute my point. You might as well have said that he lip-synced in "Here Comes Your Man". Even in Fool the World it was well documented that he wouldn't go along with the publicists in order to help sell records.
Just imagine a music-buying public who had been into Frank since the beginning. Don't you think that we would have better music overall being played on the radio and MTV?
|
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 15:20:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by vanishing_spy
Transmarine-----
No offense at all but your response was sort of disingenuous. You know what I meant. A couple of photos in the yellow album (which weren't flattering...my point exactly) and lip-syncing into a wind machine in Alec Eiffel doesn't refute my point. You might as well have said that he lip-synced in "Here Comes Your Man". Even in Fool the World it was well documented that he wouldn't go along with the publicists in order to help sell records.
Sorry. Was just responding to what you meant when you said "He was never willing to lip sync in his videos or let a stylist dress him or any of the other things that labels want you to do." Sounded like a pretty concrete statement to me.
And if I would have said that he lip-synced in HCYM, well then I would have been wrong...so I didn't say that.
Yes, FOOL THE WORLD was well documented. Doesn't mean that he didn't always go against what the publicists wanted.
Hank the 8th was a duplicated man
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
Carl
- A 'Fifth' Catholic -
Ireland
11546 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 15:37:28
|
Frank's records may have been relatively unsuccessful, but his success has been recorded. :)
--------
"Leguman...Leguman!" |
|
|
|
a guy in a rover
= Cult of Ray =
United Kingdom
535 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2006 : 04:22:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by vanishing_spy
But Frank did this to himself. He was never willing to lip sync in his videos or let a stylist dress him or any of the other things that labels want you to do. I personally think this was a mistake. If you're making great music, make yourself accessible. we love him for being an individual but I'll be honest and say that when I first saw what Black Francis looked like he was nothing like what I imagined and I was a little disappointed.
I have to say I vehemently disagree with this point. Maybe not going along with publicists has restricted his popularity up to a point, you seem to be implying he is unaccessible. He tours frequently and releases a new album almost every year which I would say makes him fairly accessible. Just because he doesn't appear on MTV everyday sucking enormous corporate cock doesn't mean he is restricting access to his music. Tossers who listen to publicists end up looking and sounding like Keane, who aren't fit to clean the shit off Franks shoes. I respect Frank for his attitude, he just makes great music, puts it out there, if you like it great, if you dont, fine. Also, how can you be dissapointed when you saw Frank? What the fuck does that mean? What did you expect him to look like? Brad Pitt? Michael Jackson? Santa Claus?
A pig or a goat well, they wouldn’t let you be mistreated
|
|
|
|
vanishing_spy
- FB Fan -
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2006 : 13:09:34
|
Rover...
Where do I begin. First I think that people are taking my critique as some sort of critique of the man. Wrong! He could put his music on tin cylinders and I would buy it! He is absolutely my musical hero. Second, calm down! When I said I was disappointed with his look I was a freakin' teenager who was used to MTV prettying-up my rockstars. I'm sorry for being so honest about my adolescent shortcomings. It sounds to me as if you've always been really well-balanced and open-minded. I apologize that it took me longer than you to be a profound individual...My point was that his music opened my mind and made me realize at an early age that it didn't matter what my favorite artists looked-like. it made me turn off MTV and start checking out the indy record stores. Today I couldn't even tell you what channel MTV is on.
Third, when I said he wasn't making himself accessible what I meant was, like me, there were and are lots of kids who judge things by their appearance first before giving it a chance. I realize that this is wrong but hey, it's also reality. I'm glad Frank doesn't compromise because if he did there would be a lot of albums that never would have seen the light of day. My point is, if he had allowed the label (who really wanted the Pixies to succeed) to shape their image some they would have had larger mass appeal. If that had happened they would have influenced more people. If they had influenced more people there would be more bands claiming Pixies or Frank as an influence. Thus, we would have better mainstream music today.
I think you read what you wanted to read rather than try to understand my meaning. People are so quick to bash someone on this forum when, in reality, they agree!!
Try meditation. |
|
|
|
TRANSMARINE
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
2002 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2006 : 13:34:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by vanishing_spy
Rover...
If they had influenced more people there would be more bands claiming Pixies or Frank as an influence. Thus, we would have better mainstream music today.
Or just WAY more mainstream music.
quote:
Originally posted by vanishing_spy
Rover...
People are so quick to bash someone on this forum when, in reality, they agree!!
I agree on the first part of the above quote, and don't really get the second part...partly because I disagree.
Hank the 8th was a duplicated man
-bRIAN |
|
|
|
IceCream
= Quote Accumulator =
USA
1850 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2006 : 10:35:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
quote:
Originally posted by Broken Face
I think that at a certain point you must, in a discussion of any pop star, seperate the 'song' from the 'performer.' For instance, i think that "Toxic" by Ms. Spears is a great pop song - it is well produced with a good beat, a hook that sticks in your head for hours and is sung well enough. That being said, if anyone with a decent female voice in that range sang it, it would be good - it has nothing to do with Ms. Spears' inflection, style or treatment of the song. So, in that case - performance eh, song good.
I never really understood why 'rock' fans get so mad at pop stars doing well* - as if it somehow poorly affects people like Frank Black or Pavement or Radiohead. It is a totally different audience - i doubt many people will walk into a store this fall and debate the new Justin Timberlake record and the new Thom Yorke (i will, but i have a soft spot for Timberlake's first solo record). What i get more angry about is shit bands like Creed and Limp Bizkit and Nickelback (sorry Dean!) taking up 'rock' radio with their terribly lame version of rock and roll.
*I understand the ethics of being pissed off at a talentless person making money while Chris Whitley dies almost penniless, but MTV is the place for Spears, just as your local modern rock station should be the place for the Arcade Fire - and it is the fault of schlock rock bands, not pop stars that it isn't so. Of course this doesn't apply to me, because New York City and the surrounding metro area don't have a modern rock station anymore.
-Brian
Please don't apologize to me for Nickleback. I apologize, on behalf of Canada, to you. We've discussed this, you and I, so you know my feelings on, for example Toxic, but for the benefit of third parties, I too think the song is catchy and has elements I like. BUT I don't like it in a way that remotely corresponds to my appreciation of bands out there not being commercially manufactured. "Paint by numbers" _is_ what we're talking about here because when these professional song writers set out to pen the next Britney/whoever song, they think, "What'll sell? What's hot right now?". For me, this is wholly separate from someone having a sound or something in their head they want to express and creating without putting it through the 'what sells' filter.
My frustration is from the fact that we live in a world where the norm is this shallow stuff and better things are largely ignored. I think that it does affect things because if more people in the industry were willing to give airplay to something that sounded new and interesting, music as a whole, doubtless even commercial music, would not become stuck in derivative cycles ala the current glut of Nickleback kNockoffs. Find your own damn sound, don't say, "Here's what they did, let's do the exact same thing."
/rant.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
"Raise your hand if you want to hear a band that’s just like your favorite band, but shitty. Really? No takers?"
-Dr. David Thorpe |
Edited by - IceCream on 06/24/2006 10:36:20 |
|
|
|
see you in tea
- FB Fan -
14 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 08:22:19
|
Dr. David Thorpe is a charlatan. He's right about a lot of things, but he's still a false doctor (and a pussy).
The reason that nothing FB has done has ever been too popular is because his music is legitimate art, most people are plebs, and plebs have nothing but disdain for legitimate art. Brilliance and originality tend to intimidate people who are incapable of producing anything of brilliance themselves, thus they embrace mediocrity because that's what they can relate to. If you want to be a financial success in the world of art and entertainment, your best bet isn't to be better than the competition; it's to be exactly like it.
No great artist has been appreciated in his time. It's my prediction that Frank Black will be held in the same esteem as Mozart in a thousand years. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"My records are unsuccessful"
