|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 18, 2006 3:45:53 GMT -5
just to add to this, since i just heard the BSS album again... it's phenomenal. the messy production masks HUGE creativity all over the thing. The hip hop beats here and there, the melodies floating in and out, the superb instrumentation and varied production mixes.
Its a towering achievement. And it easily matches anything Tool ever did. Yeah, BSS were not as "bad-ass" or mopey or brooding or philosophical or strange as TOOL. But they made one hell of an album in 2002, and then again in 2005.
Both of BSS's albums are albums you could only dream of making.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 18, 2006 3:47:27 GMT -5
okay. now that i've said my peace, i can pass out.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 18, 2006 8:33:10 GMT -5
Sweet dreams ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 18, 2006 9:31:15 GMT -5
Based on this list, I've voted for Radiohead ... but why the hell wasn't Wilco nominated? Even though I don't like AGIB, they've done a killer tour, have a solid resume of work in this decade, and at least deserve consideration for this title. I also think that a case could still be made for some older groups (Pearl Jam in particular come to mind), but I understand that we want to recognize younger groups.
The White Stripes probably should've been considered for this as well. And I think I may go buy the Arcade Fire disc today, if I can find it locally.
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jan 18, 2006 9:37:53 GMT -5
Ken, if you'll read back, you'll see that I made this board while full of Wild Turkey, after listening to Broken Social Scene and drunkenly declaring them to be the best thing ever. Going back, I'd add Wilco (who I said I'd probably be made to regret not listing), Modest Mouse, and the White Stripes.
List too many bands or don't make a poll at all, though, and you risk returning to a boring Radiohead and Tool convo.
I might throw in Sonic Youth, as they seem to be the only "older band" really still in contention for it.
That said, I prolly wouldn't make this thread again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jan 18, 2006 9:45:29 GMT -5
That's right, Luke, I'd forgotten that this was your Wild Turkey thread.  So for a drunken poll, you've done pretty damn good! |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jan 18, 2006 10:11:40 GMT -5
Pitchfork is the 00’s version of Rolling Stone magazine. Not the hollowed out shell that they put out now, of course – more like the mid-80s RS, when it wasn’t yet bereft of content or influence.
Wouldn’t bet on Pitchfork’s early demise, but I’m sure if it does eventually disappear there’ll be something similar to take its place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 10:16:49 GMT -5
depends on how you define "best"
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jan 18, 2006 10:26:47 GMT -5
Pitchfork'll be around, just not in the same capacity. The indie thing is a trend. Sure, with the way the industry's changing and major labels are shrinking while indie labels are growing and there being music in more places than ever before, everything's different now. But Pitchfork is style over substance, and once the kids get bored with the style, it'll go back to being not much of anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Jan 18, 2006 10:34:43 GMT -5
style over substance?
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jan 18, 2006 10:47:55 GMT -5
A bunch of faggy prose, no insight to the music, more concerned with how in a band is than what they sound like, not to mention a prime motive of indie cred with nothing insightful to say about much of anything. Their best writing comes when the review fashion, scenes, or music documentaries.
Collectively, they're a bunch of nobodies. Who's the David Fricke of Pitchfork? Seriously, every writer on that staff is completely disposable, and that'll never work in the long-run.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jan 18, 2006 12:36:24 GMT -5
How can Wilco be a serious contender when they've strikingly failed to export in any meaningful way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jan 18, 2006 12:43:31 GMT -5
Luke – you make a bunch of good points and I don’t read Pitchfork enough to know who their David Fricke would be. (That DiCresenzo guy maybe, I dunno...)
I think that we’d both agree, though, that they had a pretty heavy hand in generating the buzz around bands like The Arcade Fire in 2004 and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah last year. That’s where I see the parallel to RS – their "Band of the 80s" cover story on U2, for example, which was really instrumental in gaining them a profile in the States.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jan 18, 2006 14:31:06 GMT -5
See, for "best" band in my book, several requirements must be met:
~They must sound better live than on CD (or at least "As Good" - i.e, they must be able to actually play live what you hear on their albums)
~They must have such a fanbase that they could exist on fan support alone
~They must exemplify a high standard of bandmate/"family"/integrity; (i.e, the less personell-changes, the better)
~They must have existed for @ least 10 years or more
~They must rock, and they must rock hard.
Aside from these 5 basic "essentials", I can't really think of any more. Minor points of contention:
+ good, or thoughtful lyrics, (or at least appropriate for their genre/theme)
+ bonus points for above-average, powerful, striking vocalist
+ bonus points for being "down to earth", regular guys/gals, regardless of fame/fortune
+ bonus points for being gifted musicians (i.e, king crimson, dredg, tool, opeth, porcupine tree, rush, dream theater, just to name a few, all get an "edge" for having outstanding instrumentalists)
+ bonus points for longevity, i.e, The Rolling Stones get Xtra Points for still rollin, as opposed to a band that has only been around 10 yrs or so
+ bonus points for Fame, i.e, if their Name gets worldwide recognition, this counts for points as obviously they're doin' something right if everyone & their dog has heard about em
+ bonus points for productivity, if you're crankin' out albums consistently and constantly touring, this gets your band more points as you've earned a reputation for having a good "work ethic"
But in the end, and I'm only talking about as far as I'm concerned, it's all about rock'n'roll. Which brings me to a very serious consideration indeed (although many will not agree w/me on this):
+Serious Bonus Points 4 inciting MOSHING at shows
This is crucial. If you're a band who can actually play a set where no one is really moshing, or moshing halfheartedly, you are crossed off my list, you have no hope of being considered as a Finalist in the "Best Band On Earth" competition.
This does not mean your music is "no good" if it doesn't incite moshing; it just means you have no business being a ROCK BAND, and if you ARE a rock band, but people don't mosh at your shows, it just means you have no business going up against the real heavyweights whose live musical energy onstage is so off-the-hook that the crowd goes wild during their shows. I'm sorry, but this is absolutely a definite "watermark" requirement for whether a band deserves credibility as going up against the "Best".
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jan 18, 2006 14:34:38 GMT -5
This is crucial. If you're a band who can actually play a set where no one is really moshing, or moshing halfheartedly, you are crossed off my list, you have no hope of being considered as a Finalist in the "Best Band On Earth" competition.
This is just ... Plain ... NUTS !!
|
|
