PDA

View Full Version : Big Shiny 90s!


Asher
04-01-2003, 02:02:52
Snapcase, eat your heart out! :cool:

It's 2 CDs with 17 tracks on each, and on sale for $24.99CDN at FutureShop, which is ~$16US.

Somebody must buy this for Snapcase!

CD1:
1. Blink 182 - Dammit
2. Jane's Addiction - Been Caught Stealing
3. U2 - Mysterious Ways
4. Oasis - Wonderwall
5. Fatboy Slim - The Rockafeller Skank
6. Kid Rock - Cowboy
7. Matthew Good Band - Indestructible
8. Radiohead - Fake Plastic Trees
9. R.E.M. - What's the Frequency Kenneth
10. Live - Lightning Crashes
11. Big Wreck - The Oaf
12. Matchbox Twenty - 3am
13. Silverchair - Tomorrow
14. The Cranberries - Zombie
15. Bush - Everything Zen
16. The Cure - Friday I'm In Love
17. Marcy Playground - Sex and Candy

CD2:
1. Blind Melon - No Rain
2. Everclear - Santa Monica
3. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - The Impression That I Get
4. Collective Soul - Shine
5. Everlast - What It's Like
6. Third Eye Blind - Never Let You Go
7. Garbage - Only Happy When It Rains
8. Porno for Pyros - Pets
9. Sublime - What I Got
10. Veruca Salt - Volcano Girls
11. Econoline Crush - All That You Are
12. Faith No More - Epic
13. Moist - Push
14. Spacehog - In the Meantime
15. Elastica - Stutter
16. Depeche Mode - Enjoy the Silence
17. Odds - Someone Who's Cool

:beer: :p

*End Is Forever*
04-01-2003, 04:58:00
Some good stuff. Some absolute crap. Refreshingly little manufactured pop. Except Matchbox Twenty, of course...

Asher
04-01-2003, 06:45:42
I have rediscovered Blind Melon with this CD.

I'm going to go out and buy the CD with No Rain on it whenever I remember to do so.

Refreshingly little manufactured pop. Except Matchbox Twenty, of course...
Iain, Iain, Iain....One word: "Avril" :p

I'm not sure if you're joking or if you're serious, but Yourself Or Someone Like You (the album 3am came from) was recorded in just a couple days total in a studio and is surprisingly raw. Anything but "manufactured pop". :)

PosterBoy
04-01-2003, 09:58:19
I always hated Blind Melon after seeing them support G'N'R.

Moist had a great name but were crap, they did however self finance their 1st album and then get signed so I give them 1 point for self-belief and -1 point for not being good enough to get signed first and having someone else put their hand in their pocket.

I wish someone would put their hand in my pocket.

Asher
04-01-2003, 10:18:36
I think Moist spun off David Usher, who now continually assaults Canadian airwaves with craptastic dull pop music. :(

The only reason Blind Melon supported G'N'R is because Rose (of G'N'R) and Shannon (of Blind Melon) were friends before both bands even existed.

I really don't care for musical politics anyway. I just don't like most G'N'R songs, and I love "No Rain" so hopefully I like some of the other Blind Melon stuff.

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 10:44:10
Lessee... Nope, I've only heard about a third of the songs, and I dislike them all. Anyway, it hardly gives a complete picture, the following nineties hit horrors are clearly missing:

Blur - Girls and Boys
Rage against the Machine - Bulls on Parade
Boys II Men - End of the Road
Backstreet Boys - Everybody (Backstreet's Back)
Britney Spears - Baby One More Time
Daft Punk - Around the World
Metallica - Until it Sleeps
Silverchair - Tomorrow

All of which, except unfortunately RATM's nu-metal, are now part of dying genres. Can you imagine the beauty of a decade without Britpop, without crap vocal-harmony R&B, without Boy Bands, without Teen Pop, without celebrity DJs, without Biggest Bands In The World, without Post-Grunge? I can, and it's wondrous to behold. Long live the new decade! Death to the nineties!

Asher
04-01-2003, 10:49:56
The Big Shiny series is not a pop series.

May I please comment on your list? Okie
Blur - Girls and Boys
Not a large hit here across the pond

Rage against the Machine - Bulls on Parade
This could be good on the album.

Boys II Men - End of the Road
Backstreet Boys - Everybody (Backstreet's Back)
Britney Spears - Baby One More Time
These would never, ever, be on a Big Shiny CD. The Big Shiny CD is mostly a rock-centric (mainstream rock) "various artist" compilation that's been around for years in Canada.

Daft Punk - Around the World
This song may fit on the CD, as for some reason Fatboy Slim made it on there...

Metallica - Until it Sleeps
This could fit also.

Silverchair - Tomorrow
This is on there, CD1, track 13...

Asher
04-01-2003, 10:52:13
My personal favorites

CD1:
2. Jane's Addiction - Been Caught Stealing
3. U2 - Mysterious Ways
7. Matthew Good Band - Indestructible
9. R.E.M. - What's the Frequency Kenneth
10. Live - Lightning Crashes
11. Big Wreck - The Oaf
12. Matchbox Twenty - 3am
13. Silverchair - Tomorrow
17. Marcy Playground - Sex and Candy

CD2:
1. Blind Melon - No Rain
2. Everclear - Santa Monica
3. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - The Impression That I Get
4. Collective Soul - Shine
5. Everlast - What It's Like
6. Third Eye Blind - Never Let You Go
7. Garbage - Only Happy When It Rains
9. Sublime - What I Got
11. Econoline Crush - All That You Are
16. Depeche Mode - Enjoy the Silence

I'm somewhat surprised you've only heard about a third of the songs on all of the CDs. I guess the music markets really are quite different on each side of the pond.

Asher
04-01-2003, 10:54:52
And I happen to think that there are many great pre-Grunge (does this exist?? is this what Blind Melon is?), Grunge, and Post-Grunge bands from the 90s.

I suppose if you're not into that kind of thing (and Missy Elliot and Ja Rule are more your things) the 90s kinda sucked.

Most music coming out today sucks.

Thankfully many bands are going back to more 70s Rock (U2's next album is more 70's-like, so they say, for example).

Long live Rock n' Roll as it was meant to be!

Debaser
04-01-2003, 13:05:42
That Blind Melon album is brilliant. It might sound a bit dated now but at the time I used to love it. Pre-Grunge? What the fuck? Blind Melon broke through to the mainstrean at the same time as all those other classic grunge bands (1992).

Provost Harrison
04-01-2003, 13:31:32
Some good, some bad. What else can you say about it? We all know that Scabby can be a bit of a musicopath when he wants to be :D

Lazarus and the Gimp
04-01-2003, 14:36:43
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Can you imagine the beauty of a decade without Britpop, without crap vocal-harmony R&B, without Boy Bands, without Teen Pop, without celebrity DJs, without Biggest Bands In The World, without Post-Grunge? I can, and it's wondrous to behold. Long live the new decade! Death to the nineties!

It would have been Ragga, Gabba, Ambient House and Acid Jazz all the way.

No thanks. Still, at least we'd still have had Trip-hop.

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 15:15:40
Pre-Grunge would be stuff like early Soundgarden and Green River. Basically the varied seattle noise-rock bands that were already in full swing by the time the Sub-Pop-200 compilation came out in 1988.

70s Rock? Surely we can't mean the same kind of thing by this, or I might be agreeing with you. Which'd be bad. Hopefully for my nerves' sake you mean stuff like Led Zeppelin, The Eagles and Pink Floyd rather than The Stooges, T-Rex and Cheap Trick.

Asher
04-01-2003, 20:54:38
70s Rock? Surely we can't mean the same kind of thing by this, or I might be agreeing with you. Which'd be bad. Hopefully for my nerves' sake you mean stuff like Led Zeppelin, The Eagles and Pink Floyd rather than The Stooges, T-Rex and Cheap Trick.
I AGREE WITH YOU!

Bah! :mad:

That is if you meant Led Zeppelin, The Eagles, and Pink Floyd rather than Cheap Trick, etc.

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 22:03:41
Phew. I thought you were agreeing with me for a second there.

Asher
04-01-2003, 22:10:45
Relief to me too.

How can anyone possibily like Cheap Trick???

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 22:12:15
How can anyone possibly like The Eagles???

Asher
04-01-2003, 22:12:43
:lol:
I just checked Launch.com to see what other artists people listen to if they like Cheap Trick

Here's the top 3 entries given to me:
Matchbox Twenty
Doobie Brothers
Marvin Gaye

:lol:

Asher
04-01-2003, 22:15:04
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
How can anyone possibly like The Eagles???
The Eagles know a thing or two about melodies that they could teach Cheap Trick...

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 22:29:02
But there's no nerve! It's all so flat and energyless! There's notinng whatsoever in the delivery!

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 22:30:11
And all the other hooks are crap. The melody is just a collection of hooks to fit into a complex texture, isn't it?

Asher
04-01-2003, 22:30:21
Which is why the cover songs are usually better.

But still, they're great songs, it's just that the band's energy needed to be a tad higher.

Asher
04-01-2003, 22:34:14
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
And all the other hooks are crap. The melody is just a collection of hooks to fit into a complex texture, isn't it?
:confused:
You really fancy yourself as a music critic? :bash:

Asher
04-01-2003, 22:42:46
A melody is a sequence of musical tones with definitive rhythm, pitch, and timbre, arranged in such a way to create, in the listener's mind, a definitive musical shape.

A melody is divided into measures, and even further, into notes. A melody typically follows a scale or mode, and music that does usually sounds more "congruent" and is considered "less challenging" (sorry, mild sarcasm on that last one). Melody in the western context is usually written in four keys: major, minor/natural minor (aeolian), harmonic minor, or melodic minor. Western music is also commonly written in modes, or keys starting on a different note of the scale other than the first.

Melodies end on what is called a cadence. These are marked "ending points" of a section of music.

If harmony is factored into the equation, especially with counterpoint, the melody is typically thought of as the dominant tune of the melody (usually the top set of notes because our ear "picks those up" first), although all of them are technically melody and all of them together form a sort of "macro"-melody.

Asher
04-01-2003, 22:43:52
Webster sez:
A rhythmical succession of single tones, ranging for the most part within a given key, and so related together as to form a musical whole, having the unity of what is technically called a musical thought, at once pleasing to the ear and characteristic in expression.

Melody consists in a succession of single tones; harmony is a consonance or agreement of tones, also a succession of consonant musical combinations or chords.

The air or tune of a musical piece.

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 23:30:32
Which is all fine and dandy, but doesn't tell you jack all about how music is actually built up.

Like the first definition says, all lines in a piece of music are actually melody lines. These are naturally subdivided into the smallest units of recoginsable music, phrases or using Rock nomenclature, hooks. Of course, the latter term unlike the former implies that the phrase is present in order to catch the ear of the listener, but what phrases in rock are not designed for that purpose?

As such, the vast majority of phrases in the music of The Eagles are woefully deficient in caturing at least my ear- practically all the instrumentation is derivative, uninteresting and indistinctly produced. They may be harmonious with each other, but this is a paralel or even secondary consideration as far as I'm concerned.

One of the main things I tend to judge music on is the originality of the hooks in each of the lines and how well they fit together without impeding each other- and on how economically they're deployed. What you'd conventionally think of as the melody is just a small piece in such a puzzle of interlocking strings of music.

Scabrous Birdseed
04-01-2003, 23:32:07
Oh, and the bit about Cadences is crap. Cadences are harmonic structures that aid in the ending of the main melody line.

Mr. Bas
04-01-2003, 23:49:16
Lots of decent songs which are nice for the sake of nostalgia, a bunch of songs I don't know, but no really great ones I'm afraid. Still, not as poor as I thought your taste was, Asher :beer:

Asher
04-01-2003, 23:55:35
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
One of the main things I tend to judge music on is the originality of the hooks
Didn't you defend music critics when I blasted them for caring mostly about originality than content?

It's almost like politics to them.

"Oh the hooks at 2:30 and 2:50 are vaguely reminiscent of Blow Me Gently by the Goombas released in 1952, and as such, this album is unoriginal crap and I will arbitrarily give it 1 out of 6.2 stars."

What you'd conventionally think of as the melody is just a small piece in such a puzzle of interlocking strings of music.
Again, this is music critic dribble.

The Eagles songs have a consistent melody in the songs that just works. They're great tunes, in general.

Whether they've been done similarly before in previous decades means absolutely nothing to me. I listen for the music, not for the politics of it.

Which is why music critics are worthless pieces of shit who think they know a lot, but are missing the entire point of music consistently. :beer:

Oh, and the bit about Cadences is crap. Cadences are harmonic structures that aid in the ending of the main melody line.
Where did you learn musical theory?
Depending what we're talking about, cadence can be the "rate of the rhythm" or a simple chord progression ending a movement/idea.

I suppose your definition works if you consider the main melody line a movement or idea, but it's still too narrow.

I think the most basic cadence is "Amen" in gospel.

Asher
05-01-2003, 00:00:30
Originally posted by Mr. Bas
Lots of decent songs which are nice for the sake of nostalgia, a bunch of songs I don't know, but no really great ones I'm afraid. Still, not as poor as I thought your taste was, Asher :beer:
Why thanks. :)

Who are you anyway?

Mightytree
05-01-2003, 00:06:35
I listen for the music, not for the politics of it.

Which is why music critics are worthless pieces of shit who think they know a lot, but are missing the entire point of music consistently. :beer:

Wow, exactly what I was thinking. :eek:

For me, good music is music I like to listen to. That's the point. There's not some sort of scientific proof of what good music is. But since that seems to be Scabrous' approach, I absolutely cannot take his criticism seriously. He probably has a lot of 'good music' at home that he never listens to. ;)

Provost Harrison
05-01-2003, 00:32:02
Originally posted by Asher
Why thanks. :)

Who are you anyway?

You must know Bas, right?

Asher
05-01-2003, 01:36:02
I have no idea who Bas is.

My mind is a tad bit warped still from this week, though...

Sean
05-01-2003, 01:41:27
Originally posted by Mightytree
For me, good music is music I like to listen to. That's the point. There's not some sort of scientific proof of what good music is. But since that seems to be Scabrous' approach, I absolutely cannot take his criticism seriously. He probably has a lot of 'good music' at home that he never listens to. ;)
So we can’t debate music now, or any other kind of art, because you like what you like? It’s still fun.

Asher
05-01-2003, 01:45:17
Music is all subjective just like most art.

People have different personalities and different experiences and everyone's mind works differently, so some people prefer certain types of music to other types. I prefer music I can relate to that has great melodies and hooks and powerful lyrics. People can say the music I listen to is crap, they can say (without base mind you) that some of my favorite songs have riffs similar to some Velvet Underground song, and it doesn't change a damn thing.

Music critics frequently try to boil music down to a science, which annoys me to no end...

RedFred
05-01-2003, 05:55:34
The Eagles are just a back-up band for some crappy country singer, Linda Ronstadt iirc.

Big Shiny is just the K-tel of the 90s.

Asher
05-01-2003, 06:08:10
K-tel?

Scabrous Birdseed
05-01-2003, 13:31:43
Asher, asher, asher.

First you claim that people have different personality types, then you fall into exactly the same trap you claim music critics fall into- blindly picking the feelings of what you see as one of the personality types and rejecting the very possibility of any other ones.

Why, for instance, does it fall outside the realm of your imagination that some people might feel more for something that sounds different from what they've heard before, and consider that an extremely important part of the content of a song? I have the urge to constantly move on musically, to hear new hooks in a new context, and I believe most other people do too, otherwise they'd just be listening to the same songs over and over again, wouldn't they? I don't understand your positively regressive urge of just wanting to hear the familiar, don't you ever feel that's inadequate, that you want go beyond, learn more, hear more? Don't you feel that you've stopped developing as a human being once you stop wanting to accept the new? Isn't not wanting originality considerably more reprehensible from a humanist perspective than craving it?

It's not an intellectual thing either. Quite simply, once I've heard a style a certain number of times, I just don't get the kick out of it that I used to and need to move on. Is this so hard to understand? And is it hard to understand that music critics, who have all the styles of time and geography to access, are constantly wanting something that does not sound like what they heard a couple of years ago because it's to them descended into boredom and cliché?

And so you go in and try to defend your safe redigestors, your non-creators. Is it me, or are you feeling threatened? You're probably the most on-rails human being I've ever encountered- are you scared of moving off the track? Your definition of great seems to be "sounding exactly like everything else I've ever heard before", which is quite simply insane. Honestly. You're fleeing reality, fleeing the challenges of life and wrapping yourself in hate-speech. Go see a shrink or something.

Mightytree: Concretising, understanding and defining human instinct has been one of the main tasks of philosophy and critical theory since their inception. I personally think only the feeble-minded do not try to explore why they feel in a certain way. You may be an illitterate fuckwith out of touch with yourself, but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit just 'cause you're bloody autistic.

That goes for you too, asher.

Debaser
05-01-2003, 13:58:42
Great post. I agree pretty much entirely, with the exception of one tiny point. You say "I have the urge to constantly move on musically, to hear new hooks in a new context, and I believe most other people do too, otherwise they'd just be listening to the same songs over and over again, wouldn't they?".

I disagree. I think most people are happy to listen to the same songs over and over again, how else of explain the eternal popularity of that hellish Unchained Melody song? Or Bohemian Rhapsody, or fuckin' Angels. Most people don't listen to music, they just hear it. They just want a nice tune that they recognise and can hum along to. I believe most people don't have time or can't be arsed to "go beyond, learn more, hear more", they genuinly are happy to remain unchallenged and listen to the crap that commercial radio churns out every day.

Scabrous Birdseed
05-01-2003, 14:16:31
I know. Even worse, there's the cheese crowd who go to the same clubs several every week to hear "It's raining men" by the Weathergirls. *shudder*

I'm just too much an optimist to let my hope for humanity slide, I guess.

Mr. Bas
05-01-2003, 14:58:48
Originally posted by Asher
Why thanks. :)

Who are you anyway?

A long-time semi-regular at Apolyton, a semi-regular for some time here, and long before that, a semi-regular at Sidgames (where you probably posted as well, I think). I don't think I've ever talked to you personally on icq or msn or whatever, though.

Snapcase: great post, I have to agree with Debaser's point as well though. Some people just move on more quickly than others, and some people don't move on at all.

Sean
05-01-2003, 15:00:56
Ah, I love that warm fuzzy feeling superior elitism gives one. Well done, SB.

Asher
06-01-2003, 00:37:11
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
First you claim that people have different personality types, then you fall into exactly the same trap you claim music critics fall into- blindly picking the feelings of what you see as one of the personality types and rejecting the very possibility of any other ones.
Are you high on something?
I'm not rejecting anything. I have no idea what you're really talking about, but if it's about treating music as a science...that has nothing to do with personality types. Music is not an art. It's a science. Da? Da...

Why, for instance, does it fall outside the realm of your imagination that some people might feel more for something that sounds different from what they've heard before, and consider that an extremely important part of the content of a song?
Oh, they have every right not to like it if it sounds like they've been there before. It's when they write reviews about it in magazines blasting it for sounding like something else and then calling it crap because of that, then they need a reality check.

I have the urge to constantly move on musically, to hear new hooks in a new context, and I believe most other people do too, otherwise they'd just be listening to the same songs over and over again, wouldn't they?
To an extent. I still listen to tons of albums I've had for a long time, because I think they're absolutely great.

I don't understand your positively regressive urge of just wanting to hear the familiar, don't you ever feel that's inadequate, that you want go beyond, learn more, hear more?
This one came out of nowhere. I love new music, I also love music from the past that's great that I've heard before.

Music is not a condom, Snapcase, you can use it more than once! :)

Don't you feel that you've stopped developing as a human being once you stop wanting to accept the new? Isn't not wanting originality considerably more reprehensible from a humanist perspective than craving it?
You're pulling this all out of your ass, Snapcase.
Just because I don't think a song is crap and dismiss it as such if a riff sounds like something from a Velvet Underground album that I've never heard doesn't mean I don't accept the new. I do accept the new, and I accept music for what it is. Not for its originality.

I may not like a song as much if I've heard it before, but that doesn't make the song crap. It makes it boring to you, maybe, but that's not crap...

It's not an intellectual thing either.
Oh, definitely. Intellectuals don't waste their time writing music reviews -- it's an elitest thing. For christ sake, look at your posts. ;)

And so you go in and try to defend your safe redigestors, your non-creators.
Give me a break, Snapcase.
You don't even KNOW what you're talking about, that's the thing -- you rely on everyone else not *CARING* what you're spewing so as to not correct you.

Like when you told me that "Kody" stole the riff from that Velvet Underground song, I'm wondering if you ever even HEARD either song because it's nothing like it.

Is it me, or are you feeling threatened?
Threatened? What the hell am I threatened of, exactly?

A Swede who lives in England and acts like an elitist asshole when it comes to music doesn't threaten me a bit, just annoys me. :D

Your definition of great seems to be "sounding exactly like everything else I've ever heard before", which is quite simply insane. Honestly. You're fleeing reality, fleeing the challenges of life and wrapping yourself in hate-speech. Go see a shrink or something.
Again, Snapcase, I have no idea where you're pulling this from.
I just don't dismiss songs if they may or may not sound like something I've heard before. I listen for the music, I don't care about the copyright date for the song or influences in the song...

Get off it, Snapcase.

Music is an art. People like different things.

Perhaps if you actually listened to the music rather than comparing it to previous pieces you may find you enjoy the music more.

I still get a kick out of how obvious it is that you're just talking out of your ass most of the time. I suppose almost all critics are like that, though -- if they had any real skills, talent, or knowledge they'd be doing something OTHER than criticizing other people's work all the time.

Mightytree
09-01-2003, 22:04:57
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
I personally think only the feeble-minded do not try to explore why they feel in a certain way. You may be an illitterate fuckwith out of touch with yourself, but don't expect the rest of us to follow suit just 'cause you're bloody autistic.

You're an idiot.

Scabrous Birdseed
09-01-2003, 22:23:41
No, you are. :p

Now let's move over to the other thread. The posts in this one are too long.