I hope this incites a bit of debate. It's important to remember that in 1995 nu metal didn't exist. But then, who wants to be ahead of such an utterly wretched phenomenon.

Some great riffs, mad drumming, a new bar set for stick-it-to-the-man lyrics (and the SOFT. Then. LOUD. thing), and an attempt to out-Fugazi Fugazi on one hand. On the other, the most irritating vocal delivery this side of Creed and, well, the fact that Limp Slipcase might sound more like Motley Crue or Skynard if not for this album ( Yes, I would prefer this).

Tough call, but whether taken seriously or smirked upon (depending on my mood) this Swedish avant-agit-punk definately rocks. Not Crap which birthed the Shape Of Crap To Come. But no one decreed that the sins of the sons should be visited on the father.

LAD wrote:I hope this incites a bit of debate. It's important to remember that in 1995 nu metal didn't exist.

Didnt this album come out in 1998?

Anyway, yeah the vocals are par when it comes to emo/hardcore singing. I always enjoyed the much more intense, gut-splitting, screamy vocals of bands of this nature, like early Portraits of Past or Saetia.

Enough good guitar and drum parts though I think save this album from being Crap.

Not crap.

Speaking of the vocals though, I read an interview with one of the other band members who said Denis could not ever sing in time and all his vocals were resynched to the music.

Not Crap, however giving birth to the fashioncore movement is still pretty crap.

My problem with Refused is that I know where they're getting their stick-it-to-the-man lyrics. Read anything by the Situationist International (an amazing group of artists and writers gathering in France in the 60's, largely instigated the May of '68 riots) and you'll see, in my opinion, how laughably the Refused appropriates their ideas.

I find it's like hearing an ultra-sappy love song on the fucking radio that you once sang to someone. Embarassing. It's hard for me to even listen to the music.

CRAP.

even though it's so pretensious and way more bombastic than i like my punkrock to be, i think it's great! especially the song 'shape of punk to come' is such a killer. amazing drummer and i even like the singer. it's a good thing that once in a while some band dares to make such a record... and then of course breaks up because they can never top it and because of the battle of the ego's i guess.

but i think it's also a good thing that most bands would rather make a lot of good records instead of that one defining 'masterpiece'.

not crap

chet wrote:

LAD wrote:I hope this incites a bit of debate. It's important to remember that in 1995 nu metal didn't exist.

Didnt this album come out in 1998?

i dunno, but Korn's first album came out in 1994.

This is tough. When you take Refused for what they are, they can rock pretty hard sometimes. The problem is, they look like complete pussies when compared to bands they imitate/namecheck (born against). This woman from pitchfork (one of the few times i agree with pitchfork) wrote an interesting article about the guy from refused and how his entire career has kind of imitated Ian from Nation of Ulysses and the Make up. Its very strange.

Crap with some waffles.

My problem with Refused is that I know where they're getting their stick-it-to-the-man lyrics. Read anything by the Situationist International (an amazing group of artists and writers gathering in France in the 60's, largely instigated the May of '68 riots) and you'll see, in my opinion, how laughably the Refused appropriates their ideas.

Say many things about 'em, but don't say they hide their influences. They namecheck the Situationists right in the album sleave. Besides, critiquing someone for 'appropriating' Situationist tactics is like critiquing a capitalist for making a profit. Detournment is/was simply the politically motivated reappropriation of cultural detritus. I've studied and written on the Situationists and I think Refused were an alright--ie, unexceptional-- punkrock manifestation or mouthpiece of Situ ideas/attitude.

Also, the Situ influence on May '68 is largely mythology. The primary (direct) fuse was arguably lit in Nanterre by a Students Union executive which took advantage of an apathetic student body and administration and published a manifesto using the Universtiy press. Shit escalated from there, and no actual members of the Situationist Internationale were ever directly involved. In fact, academics like Althusser, Baudrillard, and Lefebvre probably had more responsibility.

For those interested in the SI - almost everything's on the Web:

http://situationist.cjb.net/
http://www.nothingness.org/SI/debord.html


If anyone hasn't read it, Greil Marcus's "Lipstick Traces; A Secret History of the 20th Century" is a great read, tho his treatment of the SI influence on Malcom McLarren (sp?) and Johnny Rotten is pretty suspect, I think.

Still reading? Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle remains the primary work of Situ theory (and is becoming increasingly familiar on University Syllabi, speaking of appropriation - Debord was rather vehement about his distance from the academy to his dying days as a bloated alcoholic).

Anyway Ken Knabb's SI Anthology is online in its entirety here:

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/index.htm

Edit: I just became your sister. I never want to stop being your sister. Perhaps I should never post again.

Thanks for the info. I've read most of Ken Knabb's anthology, and also have the "Guy Debord: Complete Cinematic Works" put out by AK press.
It's good shit, and of course, lots of bands are discussing the ideas, but Refused just seems to be a more prominent one.

It's not that I don't like that they're, uh... exploring the ideas, I just don't really like the way they do it.