...It's a stupid question. People seem to think that just because they looked somewhat similar and walked around carrying acoustic guitars, they must be compared to each other for all eternity. While there are certainly some similaraties between their music, there aren't enough to warrant a comparison of talent, just as you can't really compare a guitarist to a bassist. I'm sure Donovan himself is sick of being called the "British Bob Dylan", because no-one ever calls Dylan the "American Donovan."
While Donovan is often referred to as a folk artist, he would probably feel more at home in the psychedelic scene than any other, although his music is probably too diverse to be set into any specific catgeory. Certainly his lyrics and the general atmoshpere to his songs suggest a strong psychedelic inlfuence ( in more ways than one), as is evident in "Sunshine Superman"...
It should be mentioned that he always claimed to be against hard drugs, although he only really took this stance after the famous drug bust at Redlands. To put it simply, Donovan's music has that distinct sound which seems to represent the 60's, evoking images of blurry bright colours and tie-dye shirts. As with all things psychedelic, it's originality can never be called into question, no matter what you think about the "inspiration." So can we please stop comparing him to Dylan?
This review was made possible because "Yer Blues" by The Beatles was playing in the background.
I recently browsed around Ticketek, to check if there was anything interesting coming to my area in the near future. Given that most of the bands I like have at least one dead member, there obviously wasn't much on offer. A couple of tribute bands here and there, and some ex-band members going solo, but nothing that would vaguely resemble the real thing and justfiy not only the money I would have to pay, but the considerable movement required to see a show. I was struck however, by the number of terrible "musicians" that will be gracing the stage in the coming months. I was initially going to highlight everyone you should not see, but it would just end up being almost the entire Ticketek website, so here is a concise edition...
1) DAVID HASSELHOFF - In case you were interested in going, the tour has been cancelled anyway, meaning you were probably the only one going.
2) U2 - I think I have made my feelings about this clear.
3) ROGUE TRADERS - You could see them. Or, you could just play a ton of old songs one after another, and not have them raped of all their glory by this incompetent band.
4) TASTE OF CHAOS 2006 - Taking Back Sunday, Thursday, Anti-Flag, Underoath, Senses Fail, Saosin and Parkway Drive. If you like "emo" , or "hardcore", or whatever these bands call themselves, then this concert will make you wet(or cut) yourself. The only positive is that with so many "emo's" confined together in a closed space, they won't be bothering the rest of the world with their whining.
5) THE LIVING END - The Clash must be really, really pissed off at what bands like The Living End have done to the punk scene.
6) KASEY CHAMBERS - Forget the music, could you stand looking at her permanently depressed face for more than 3 minutes?
7) PANIC! AT THE DISCO -GET! a proper name. And LEARN! to play music.
8) KILLSWITCH ENGAGE - LAMB OF GOD - UNEARTH - This is the worst because you can tell that the guys are quite talented, but for some reason they just decide to do everything at breakneck speed and scream.
9) RISE AGAINST - See The Living End...
10) LIVE -Yes, unfortunately they are...
11) LESS THAN JAKE - It's basically like Year 6 Music class, but worse.
12) FOO FIGHTERS - First album was excellent , then got progressively worse, and are just shocking now.
13) THE MARS VOLTA - It's an insult to Pink Floyd that they claim to be influenced by them.
14) AFI - The music is bad enough, but I defy you to find me four people who look more fucked up than these guys.
This is why I don't want children...imagine if your kids ended up like this.
15) JOHN MAYER - Please grow some balls...
16) COCA-COLA LIVE N' LOCAL TOUR 06 - Evermore, The Veronicas, End Of Fashion and more...The most worrying part here is the "and more"...
So there it is. I'm sure many of you had plans to attend one or more of these shows, and I urge you to ignore me and do so. After all, I can't prove myself right unless you see it for yourself.
I wrote this while listening to "Cocaine" by Eric Clapton, who is also touring, and who you actually should go see.
Have you ever heard a song that sounded excellent, except for the horrible lyrics? For every great lyric penned by man, there are about 743 terrible ones. For every Lennon, there are 743 Duffs, Lohans, and Hiltons. The number is obviously an estimate, but I'm sure it wouldn't be far from the actual figure, should someone else ever wish to conduct a study of this nature. There is, however, a middle ground; the instrumental. The following is a tribute to 10 great songs, the artists of which decided againt risking ruining a musical masterpiece by saying somthing stupid.
1- Comanche - The Revels( below is the video that made this song famous, it's definitely NOT WORK SAFE)
2- The Ox - The Who
3- Eruption - Van Halen
4- Bron Yr Aur - Led Zeppelin
5- Embryonic Journey - Jefferson Airplane
6- Steppin Out - John Mayall's Bluesbreakers
7- The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - Ennio Morricone
8- This Is Jazz - Miles Davis
9- The Marriage of Figaroverture - Mozart
10- Orion - Metallica
...I know this site is called ONLY Rock N' Roll and there are some songs there that clearly don't fit that category, but as far as ass-kickery goes, they are right up there, and are therefore welcome to grace this page.
I made this list while listening to "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zeppelin, yet again.
Much has been said about "Reality" TV, but it's biggest failing is that the name is extremely misleading. Reality shows, after all, do not actually represent reality in the slightest. After all, suppose you and 10 other people found yourself stranded on an island, for example, would you decide to split up into two tribes and play a series of inane games against each other, before progressively reducing the number of people there to help you by voting them off? If "Survivor" is anything to go by, then this is the appropriate course of action.
Right at the bottom of Reality TV's cesspit of shows, lie shows such as "ROCKSTAR" or "SUPERGROUP". Now before I continue, I must admit to never having actually watched more than 2 minutes of these shows,because I refuse to compromise my enjoyment for the sake of research. You don't really need to watch any of it though, to understand the general point of these shows....it's either an Idol-esque vote-a-thon to determine the new lead singer of a washed up band, or just an Osbornes-esque mind-numbingly uninteresting journey through the lives of some washed up band. How original
There is no shortage of bands towards whom the phrase "What's all the fuss about?" can be justifiably applied. Bands about whom not enough fuss is made however, are few and far between. When looking for such a band, look no further than The Kinks.
Their main problem was bad timing. Their careers rose at more or less the same time as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who et al., but there are only so many bands that the public can fawn over . Initially, they also posessed a very similar sound to that of The Beatles, which didn't help. However, roughly 40 years after they formed, it is easy to look back at their work and wonder why they aren't mentioned in the same breath as the bands mentioned above
On 7 July 2006, Syd Barrett, arguably the most intriguing and elusive character in the world of rock n' roll died. There is no shortage of musicians who have captured my imagination, but his enigmatic life puts him in a category of his own. We once had to write a paper on any musian for school, and I chose him. It was a decision I greatly regretted, beacuse I couldn't stop writing, unlike most school assignments, when I found myself endlessly bullshitting to fill up space. I don't think it is possible to do justice to the task of profiling Syd Barrett in the space of a single article, so I'm going to let lyrics do most of the talking. And let's face it, it's much easier to use other people's words than to think of your own.
Syd Barrett was a founding member of Pink Floyd and largely responsible for their initial rise to fame, but soon a variety of mental problems led to his being kicked out of the band, and entering a phase of his life which would soon lead to seclusion. However, the remaining members of the band continued to write songs about him at regular intervals, the most famous of which is "Shine On You Crazy Diamond
There's nothing like making a simple list to fill an entry when you're lazy, and this list is a tribute to the lazy folk. Bands who, after producing one huge hit and ensuring financial security for the rest of eternity, decided to stop trying. Keep in mind, this is not yet another "one hit wonder" list. These are bands who actually continued to make music for years after a hit, but just weren't very good. Who can blame them? If I saw millions suddenly flow into my bank account, I would spend less time writing songs, and more time buying stuff I didn't need, just to spite others.I would wait for someone to save up for decades to buy something, and then buy it for myself instead. After all, the more things you can buy, the less important reputation, or for that matter friendship, seems.
The first reason, as you might have guessed, is that anyone who spells like that immediately loses all credibility. The sad thing is that they came up with this even before spelling like that was considered cool. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I cannot think of any other band name which could possibly have taken less time to think of. Clearly I hate You Too ( or do they mean it as You Two?), but my hatred of them is exacerbated by the fact that musically, they are actually quite talented. However, they have forever been far more obsessed with their image , than their music....
These guys have cool written all over them, if you're 12.
Naturally any discussion about U2's image must start with Paul David Hewson. Oh, sorry, I used his normal name. I mean BONO. BONO VOX, to be precise. May I ask what was wrong with his original name? It's not as if it bore an unfortunate similarity to some sexual innuendo, for example, which is the common reason for changing one's name. In fact, as far as sexual innuendo goes, Paul's adopted name is far more suggestive. In case you're wondering, "bono vox" actually means "good voice." That's like me renaming myself "AWESOME WRITER" , or "SEXUAL STALLION", none of which are true. And while I'm no singing expert, I've never found Bono's singing to be anything out of the ordinary. I'm going to avoid rambling about Bono's personal "humanitarian work", partly because this is an article about the band as a whole, and partly because it would be far too exhausting and painful to write about. Le me just say this: the less you tell everyone about it, the more people respect that sort of work
When people show an interest in rock n' roll, they often ask for a song or a band to get them started on their quest for musical nirvana. However, it's not that easy. Rock n' Roll is far too diverse a genre to be encapsulated by just one song. Luckily, no music is needed to understand the world of rock n' roll. Just watch "This Is Spinal Tap"
Think of "The Office", but set in the 70's and featuring a fading British rock band on tour, rather than a paper manufacturing company. "This Is Spinal Tap" is a mockumentary about such a band ( named Spinal Tap, by the way) , on tour in America at the wrong end of their careers. It is full of parodies of various actual bands, as well as certain rock n' roll stereotypes. The plot is loosely structured around a series of interviews that the band conducts with the director of the mocumentary, all of which are hugely entertaining. Here's a sample, from IMDB.com
First of all, kudos to you for actually bothering to argue with my choices, because I'm sure that you're not the only one who's a fan of one or more of these bands...
Now as far as I can see, you only disagreed with 4 of my 16 choices, or at least you didn't mention any others. Is that really such a surprise? I know that all of the bands I mentioned have large followings, hence the desire by some promoter somewhere to organize a concert.So in that sense, if you agree with 12 of my choices, I would say that's more than the average person.You're obviously quite a huge Living End fan, so I can understand the pain you felt to see them on this unimportant list created by some stranger in his bedroom, but given the clairty of you're writing , I can tell you're an intelligent person; surely then you can appreciate that someone may not like your beloved band? Yet such people do exist because, no band is loved by everyone. For example, I find it hard to believe that there are people who hate The Beatles, but they do exist, in large quantities. Anyway, on to the other 3 you objected to...
In the case of U2, do you really want to pay good money to see a band who, in your own words are "still an ok band, just deteoriated in their music style so much over the past decade" ? I don't know about you, but I can't just splash the cash at every concert that comes along, so if I do decide to go, it has to be something special, not a band slidiing continuously toward mediocrity. You also clearly dislike two bands out of the Taste Of Chaos line-up...but you're willing to pay money to sit through their set-list? Again, maybe you're just willing to spend more money on these things than I am. Lastly, John Mayer...I have not heard "Continuum", simply because, as you said "Your Body is a Wonerland" was so annoying, that I didn't feel like wasting more time giving him another chance , so to speak, by listening to his new album. And I'll take your word for it about it's style, since you've heard it and I haven't, but if it really is a "true transformation of his style", then why did he call it Continuum? ...
As for your argument that my arguments were not based on concrete fact, you're right , in the sense that I did not spend any time researching anything about any of these bands. The fact that I devoted a whole line to each band should tell you that this was not really a serious piece; I couldn't care less if you boycott these bands or not...it will hardly make a difference to their success. What I know about them, I know from the odd video or radio clip which I stumble upon by accident. Needless to say, if I had been impressed, I would have spent the time to hear more of their music. But hey, if I got paid to do this, then I might take it seriously. But I don't.
Finally, as for whether I do like anyone at all, you obviously haven't read any of my other posts, because apart from the ones in the "Criticism" category, they all deal with bands that I like.But since you asked, the following are the acts that I would see in the coming months, if I could.. Yngwie Malmsteen, Zeppelin Flies Again, Tommy Emmanuel, The Pink Floyd Experience, Eric Clapton, and G3.
I mean no offence to you personally either, but I think you're hugely over-reacting to what is after all, a piece by someone whose opinion , unfortunately, does not really matter. Given that your avatar/display picture is a rallying cry to dedicated apathetics everywhere, such as myself, I would have expected less of you ( in the good sense.) In the words of any hippie anywhere....Chill out, dude.
(I've written more for this comment than for any of my posts, so you deserve credit for inspiring me to write so much.)
That was hilarious...i don't think sidetracking beyond necessity is a bad thing...it certainly works for Family Guy...and it makes the episodes easier to watch again, because you forget the "random" bits
I think with Soundgarden my issue was more that they didn't make the most of their potential....but then again, i suppose that they do have a lot of fans, so they cant all be wrong...as for devo, yeah, everyone likes devo..
...They ARE a good band....put them in the 70's and everyone would love them, its not their fault that they don't want to conform the modern msuic's lower standards.People who criticize them should try playing their songs completely...
Comments (1)
Add Comments
verture - Mozart
Read More
Comment by Arjun
on Concert Watch: Who Not To See
Now as far as I can see, you only disagreed with 4 of my 16 choices, or at least you didn't mention any others. Is that really such a surprise? I know that all of the bands I mentioned have large followings, hence the desire by some promoter somewhere to organize a concert.So in that sense, if you agree with 12 of my choices, I would say that's more than the average person.You're obviously quite a huge Living End fan, so I can understand the pain you felt to see them on this unimportant list created by some stranger in his bedroom, but given the clairty of you're writing , I can tell you're an intelligent person; surely then you can appreciate that someone may not like your beloved band? Yet such people do exist because, no band is loved by everyone. For example, I find it hard to believe that there are people who hate The Beatles, but they do exist, in large quantities. Anyway, on to the other 3 you objected to...
In the case of U2, do you really want to pay good money to see a band who, in your own words are "still an ok band, just deteoriated in their music style so much over the past decade" ? I don't know about you, but I can't just splash the cash at every concert that comes along, so if I do decide to go, it has to be something special, not a band slidiing continuously toward mediocrity. You also clearly dislike two bands out of the Taste Of Chaos line-up...but you're willing to pay money to sit through their set-list? Again, maybe you're just willing to spend more money on these things than I am. Lastly, John Mayer...I have not heard "Continuum", simply because, as you said "Your Body is a Wonerland" was so annoying, that I didn't feel like wasting more time giving him another chance , so to speak, by listening to his new album. And I'll take your word for it about it's style, since you've heard it and I haven't, but if it really is a "true transformation of his style", then why did he call it Continuum? ...
As for your argument that my arguments were not based on concrete fact, you're right , in the sense that I did not spend any time researching anything about any of these bands. The fact that I devoted a whole line to each band should tell you that this was not really a serious piece; I couldn't care less if you boycott these bands or not...it will hardly make a difference to their success. What I know about them, I know from the odd video or radio clip which I stumble upon by accident. Needless to say, if I had been impressed, I would have spent the time to hear more of their music. But hey, if I got paid to do this, then I might take it seriously. But I don't.
Finally, as for whether I do like anyone at all, you obviously haven't read any of my other posts, because apart from the ones in the "Criticism" category, they all deal with bands that I like.But since you asked, the following are the acts that I would see in the coming months, if I could.. Yngwie Malmsteen, Zeppelin Flies Again, Tommy Emmanuel, The Pink Floyd Experience, Eric Clapton, and G3.
I mean no offence to you personally either, but I think you're hugely over-reacting to what is after all, a piece by someone whose opinion , unfortunately, does not really matter. Given that your avatar/display picture is a rallying cry to dedicated apathetics everywhere, such as myself, I would have expected less of you ( in the good sense.) In the words of any hippie anywhere....Chill out, dude.
(I've written more for this comment than for any of my posts, so you deserve credit for inspiring me to write so much.)