johnnyshape wrote:To me, when you create in front of other people, you don't keep all of 'your band'. Some of it escapes into the wild.

I like that part of 'my band' to be my clothes.

Rimbaud III wrote:

johnnyshape wrote:To me, when you create in front of other people, you don't keep all of 'your band'. Some of it escapes into the wild.

I like that part of 'my band' to be my clothes.

You keep saying that, and I require proof.

Adam I wrote:Who the hell knew what Napalm Death, or Husker Du, or JAMC or Bastard Kestrel or Electro Hippies or Walking Seeds or whoever looked like/behaved like when first encountered, finger poised above record button on Peel's shows? It was the music, just the music.

Good point. But then Peel told you their bizarre name, and you got to wondering more about them. The name and the title of the record did something, even a tiny something, in your brain to affect your perception of the music.
And I can't think of a band I first heard on Peel and then went on to buy their record or enjoy their career or whatever that I've never (say) seen a photograph of. If you like it, it doesn't stay 'just the music'.

burun wrote:

Rimbaud III wrote:

johnnyshape wrote:To me, when you create in front of other people, you don't keep all of 'your band'. Some of it escapes into the wild.

I like that part of 'my band' to be my clothes.

You keep saying that, and I require proof.

Some things are better left unseen.

Nice shoes.

johnnyshape wrote:

scott wrote:I don't want to know what a band looks like, or what their stage antics are like, or if they're rich doudes or poor chicks or whatever. That stuff is irrelevant and even a distraction to me, especially if I find out they've got some important defining plot-point before I hear their music.

Skronk wrote:I see the music separately from a band's aesthetic value, or whatever else, chemistry, image, etc. The music can come from all of that, but there's not one band above their sound. I couldn't care less about who's who, who's playing what, what they look like, because that's not the special part. It makes a difference, of course, but no one's after anything but the music.

So you wouldn't mind if, when all the bands you enjoy play live, they just played behind a curtain? So they don't distract you from the music?

This is, naturally, a facetious point. But I personally find it completely impossible, with popular guitar music, to divorce music & sonics from image, interaction, record sleeves, business practices, history, personality etc. Also, with bands I have actually interacted with in even some small way, I find it near nigh impossible to like a band's music if I find their personalities odious. Similarly, I often (though not always) tend to enjoy the music of people I personally like.

I don't find it impossible at all to divorce the music from what you've listed. If I care enough about what I'm hearing, for instance, Burzum's Varg being a pagan/nazi/murderer/arsonist, while his personality might be odious, the music is what makes a difference.

Even someone like Ted Nugent, who I have no respect for, if I cared for his music, his practices and general outlook, while completely different than mine, would have no bearing on whether the music is good or not.

johnnyshape wrote:Other music though, such as electronica, I completely agree though. I couldn't give a stuff what anybody looks like. It's a different aesthetic experience for me.

But why should it be any different? If you and I both can enjoy faceless electronic music, why can't the courtesy be extended to rock bands?

johnnyshape wrote:....Music doesn't get presented to you in a volunteered-for, controlled, double-blind test.

You're right, but it's what the listener is moved by, first and foremost. Besides the music, everything else is superficial.

johnnyshape wrote:I'm not suggesting you are lying to yourself or anybody else as such. However I have a feeling most people who say "it's all about the music" when it comes to bands, are kidding themselves on one level or another, even if it is subconscious or oblique, such as the way you come across something in the first place. Music doesn't get presented to you in a volunteered-for, controlled, double-blind test.

I guess we're all different people, then. The easiest example I can think of is the Joggers, a band I really dig. I was at a party in 2004, and a song came on that made me go "wow, that guitar part is awesome!". I asked the guy whose Ipod it was what band was this. He told me it was The Joggers, from Portland. He gave me the cd to keep, since he had already ripped it to MP3s.

I listened to the whole disc and really liked it. Looking at the pictures of them on the album, I thought they looked kinda silly and over-fashioned, but the music was damn good so who cares?

When I saw them live a few years later, they looked like sweaty r-tards just like any of the rest of us. But damn if they didn't play some cool songs.

So yeah, I guess I just feel bad for you that you can't like music for the music, that you have to like it for all those other components you listed.

And one thing I agree with is the idea that a douche can make you not want to like his band. After I "met" Frank Black, I was tempted to immediately destroy my Pixies records. But I didn't. Even if I think he's a fucking jagoff, I still can't escape the fact that he made some fucking awesome music. It's music that I love, regardless of how much I came to dislike him.

I listened to and loved Polvo for years before I saw video of them performing live and found out what they looked like or acted like on stage. And in the video, they looked like anybody else you would share a practice space with or play a show with at a local bar or work with at a restaurant or whatever. So what? That didn't change the fact that I love their music. The other stuff can add or subtract from the "total package" idea in my head, which gets very little consideration most of the time, because ultimately the only thing that matters is the music.

And I'd prefer no screen when bands play live. I enjoy watching their hands fretting chords and their arms moving sticks around the drumkit. It's nice to see the music being played live. If you mean ninja kicks and explosions and choreographed dance numbers, yeah, I don't mind if you hide that behind a screen. But I really enjoy watching a real, legitimate music maker, let's say Chris Brokaw, playing his instrument. Sometimes he bends his back a little, or bends his legs, which is about as ninja-kick as I've seen him get. Mostly he just plays the hell outta his guitar.

Unwound is one of my favorite bands ever. I only saw them live once, and loved it. If I was at a show next week, and any one of the members of that band came up to me and started talking to me, I wouldn't have any idea who they are unless they told me they're in a band called Unwound, at which point I would say "oh man, I love you guys, you've written some of my favorite songs ever". I'm not a teenager anymore, I don't put posters up on my wall. I just listen to music that I like.

givemenoughrope wrote:Of course, hiding one's identity in music is just as corny as self-mythology. There is little worse than band press photos.

absolutely. like that band that wears the eyeball heads. i'd bet that a lot more people know them for the costumes than their actual music. their quest to remain anonymous/mysterious has had the opposite effect: people only know them for their shtick.

It looks like a conversation looking
to discover what was born first,the egg or the chicken?!?!

Bands v.music v.sound?
...uhm......!!

Band=the chef
Sound=the ingredients
Music=Spaghetti alla Norma

In my opinion,the sound is the language(colours,dress,phisical expression)
given to translate,to express,to convey a spiritual impulse/
an inspiration/an emotion that needs a shape.

Behind the sound that should express the music
there is the chef,the human factor.
Imagining a band composed by three people,there will be
thre human factors.
Each human factor is composed by five elements:earth,water,fire,wind
and energy.
Five elements multiplied by 3 human factors create 15 engines
(5 engines each member that,together,cooperate to build the same structure.

Skronk saied:
"It's the sound that Shellac makes that makes a difference, isn't it?"
I say:
"Yes,of course,but Shellac isn't an abstract entity;
Shellac is the name that identify Bob,Todd and Steve,and what they do,
sounding and musically, is the perfect translation of who they are."

Bands win.ALWAYS!!!

It's not easy to be in a band;it requires a lot of passion and
almost a total commitment,but it's an opportunity,
an amazing chance to learn how to interact with other humans owning different personalities,different fears,different way to colour the world.
But if we work all together for the same purpose,the band will have
an identity.

Bands win,ALWAYS!!!

Salut a tutt.
IsotonaG