Who is the true genius of modern music?

[depressed beyond tablets]

was buddy rich. now is jojo mayer.

and i've listened to all your shit

[ffogems]

The first album of Tom Waits that I heard was Closing time, and from there was slowly initiated into the madness that followed. I don't think there are many artists (I may be tragically wrong) whose early work would be considered aberrant if released now, when compared to their recent output. He may yet go on to experiment and surprise us all, by perhaps recording a pop album with Britney Spears wailing down a drainpipe into the ear of the goat, with Mr Waits plugging the goat's rear orifice with a microphone he made out of Rizlas and chicken wire.
One can only hope.  

I think Rain Dogs is by far my favourite, though

[!]

FAST LADY
http://swainlake.co.uk/

[Chers penis]

Mike Skinner

[SurferGhost]

EDIT: Forgot Brian Wilson and Andy Partridge in my list.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

All better than that bunch of twats James who wouldn't know a great song if a bunch of students sat down in a concert and whistled them one.

I can only hope you die in you sleep. ;)

What's strange is that you're a Morrissey/Smiths fan, mayer[/i], which should pretty much make you pre-disposed to liking James. After all, you can certainly see the influences on early James records like Stutter and Stripmine, and then James were rescued by Fontana and started producing original records. I'm not accusing you of this, but I think far too many people are of them opinion that they just churned out stadium rock and that's it, when they were actually one of the great creative musical forces of the 90's. Just listen to the albums.

What Brian Eno did with Laid, before he got too cosy and ended up half-destroying them was take them back to their origins and create a cohesive album. You mentioned Another Green World, but the production on that was poor by comparison. Apollo/Atmospheres is probably an exception- it's hard to compare the two in honesty. I've heard nearly all Eno's work and Laid in terms of production is the best, or at least one of the best.

Reading the above quote back to myself, it comes across as if you haven't any clue what you're talking about. I can dislike a band in terms of taste and still give them credit for invention, creativity, production etc though clearly you can't, because what you posted above, is utter shit,

[mayer]

Hahah, of course, I was writing in character.

Whatever character S?-S! was playing with that toss about Noel Gallagher....

I can understand you not rating him, most of my friends don't, but from "bellowing pub singer" on you exhibited that you'd utterly missed the point of the band and the music, and I was winding you up in kind.

I've heard hardly any James to be honest, but what I heard I hated, and I can't be arsed to put the effort in, not when all the songs have that bellowing whiny cunt Tim Booth on them.

[Peking O]

The later, weirder elements of Tom's reportoire have their place.  When I'm feeling really twisted, I enjoy his post-Asylum output, but there are a couple too many shouty sea shanties for me.

I remember the entirely talent-free David Baddiel once saying that the "correct" answer to give when asked if you like Tom Waits was to say that you only like the early stuff. That's about as wrong as you can be. His later stuff is far better, more original, and ultimately more moving than his earlier stiff, which sounds a bit bog-standard barroom crooner in comparison.

[George]

Garlic bread, Gaarlic Bread?

[trotsky assortment]

Of course, I'm not saying I dislike Tom's post-Asylum Years.  'Swordfishtrombones' and 'Rain Dogs' especially have some quality moments.  I just have to find myself in the right frame of mind.  

'Blue Valentine', 'Small Change' (actually, most of the earlier albums) I can play daily (if necessary) and still find them wonderful.  I get what you're saying about them being less inventive - more standard bar-room crooner - but, hey, I love that.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I've heard hardly any James to be honest

Well then forgive me for being triumphant, but that comment sort of renders your previous comment:

All better than that bunch of twats James who wouldn't know a great song if a bunch of students sat down in a concert and whistled them one.

..irrelevant. At least I have the decency to have heard a vast amount of the music I decide to criticize, rather than making snap judgements on several songs I may or may not have payed attention to.

As far as winding me up goes, you've probably noticed that I have a complete blind spot when it comes to that, and usually end up following through with my arguments whether people are winding me up or not.

Anyhow- my original point is still made that yeah Brian Eno is probably up there with the geniuses of modern music, and some of his work with James serves as good evidence of his genius, Laid in particular.

[mayer]

I like a good night in a pub. Find me one "bellowing pub singer" who sounds like Noel Gallagher, or write songs like him, and I'll get the first ten rounds in out of gratitude, thanks.

I've heard Tim Booth's voice, that's enough to make me never want to listen to another James record again.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Well I think Tim Booth's got a much more tuneful voice. A much better singer. Noels got a worse range and absolutely no subtlety to his voice. People who sing like him are ten a penny,

[mayer]

Range and subtlty are no match for emotion and feeling. That's why John Lydon and Davey Henderson are better singers than Mariah Carey.




Name 'em.

(EDIT: The fact that Noel is a songwriter who sings less than three songs an album, who I repeatedly pointed out was nominated for his songs rather than his performance, should also be noted).

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Wrong entirely. It's the subtlety of singing that allows singers to sing with emotion and feeling, and if you listen to James songs, you can't argue that they're sung with emotion and feeling.

Plus, as I've already stated, I don't think his songwriting in anything in particular. In this day and age you should only really get credit for doing something original, and the amount of contrived crap he comes out with compared to tracks that are original and offer something convincing and fresh to me is noticable.

I could name more than ten singers who do the circuit in my small home town who are better singers than Noel Gallagher.

[hulahoops]

In this day and age you should only really get credit for doing something original

Why?  Why is it better to do something "original" that leaves me cold, than to do something that may be similar to something that's already done before, but that moves me?  I'm not saying music should be the same thing over and over again, of course not, but to dismiss any effort  that's not genuinely "original" - and frankly, it seems near impossible to do anything truly original anyway - seems to be cutting yourself off from things you might enjoy.

I don't think anything Oasis did could be called "original" - I don't rate them either, except for drunken singalongs, but if it meant something to someone else, fair enough.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Yes, I agree with you. Most music is just a mix of different styles and influences anyway, so it is quite easy to do something original sounding. I should have said that deliberately apeing a certain band or genre deserves direct criticism, and you could easily criticize Oasis for that.

It's a bit besides the point. My points are still that Eno produced Laid really well, and that Noel Gallagher certainly isn't anywhere near approaching genius.

[sanchopanza]

also,



A few others I'd mention are Marvin Gaye, Johnny Cash and probably Wayne Coyne (the guy from the flaming lips)

[mayer]

Noel Gallagher certainly isn't anywhere near approaching genius.

:-) That's a perfectly good opinion, which to your credit you've backed up with some natter. I feel the same way about every James track I've heard, and despite rating Eno's production skills, I think they were wasted on the Laid tracks I've heard.

I was really taking issue with your phlegmatic, "arrogant cunt " "bellowing pub singer" "extraordinary self-belief that he is something special comes from knowing fuck all about music" comments, which I still think are unwarranted.

He's far from arrogant about his talents, as interviews given since he's stopped snorting the cundust make abundantly clear. His voice, whilst not as distinctinve or gripping as his brother's (when on form), is usually quite quiet and lilting in the main (Take Me Away, Talk Tonight, all of the Unplugged set),  and he may have godawful taste in bands, but I certainly don't think he knows "fuck all about music", to be frank.

[trotsky assortment]

I own a complete set of Flaming Lips albums (except for 'Zaireeka'), so I can consider myself a fan.  I'm completely bewildered how Wayne Coyne has been mentioned in this thread more than once though.

A decent arranger of quirky (half-stolen) ideas, yes.
Genius?  Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

[mayer]

I think he deserves Genius for The Soft Bulletin, Clouds Taste Metallic and "Do You Realize??" alone. But I've got low standards apparently!

[trotsky assortment]

That's fair enough mayer.  

Like I say, I do indeed enjoy the Lips and understand where you and others are coming from.  Fact is though, the things I enjoy about them can also be found in equal measure on old Beatles, Barrett and Brian Wilson works - at least as far as the later, more tuneful psych elements are concerned.  
As for the earlier (pre-'Hit To Death', largely ignored) stuff, there's not much there I can get similar kicks from by spinning some Husker Du...

Not really a winge as such - though I do find much of their stuff sounds very 'second hand'.  Bless 'em.

Must buy the DVD when it comes out though.  If as much love has gone into it as the Pavement DVD a couple of years back, it'll be worth the price of admission.