A Musical Discussion Thread.

[Shortcut To Moncton]

I'm finding it consideringly less interesting to come to these boards anymore and even read the Matthew Good Music thread for that matter (I usually just hog the Other Music Thread). Now I know that there are a lot of newbies here and that's cool that Matt has gained a new range of fans over the past years but he has really is started to become stale.

 

NOTE: my definition of a 'newbie' = fan of Matthew Good since 2003-present.

 

Back to my opinionated thread, (in other words, you are allowed to disagree) but yes, Matthew Good's new route of turning into a solo acoustic artist is not thrilling me to say the least. I've heard just about every b-side that he's released recently and none of the songs bring anything new to the table--especially with all of the similar musicians out right right now. The only song that sounded remotely interesting was Black Helicopter--maybe for its atmospheric special effects, I do not know--but I feel that with age, he is beginning to wear & tear. Matthew Good has released his share of mediocrity over a few years--see If I Were A Tidal Wave/Can't Get Shot In The Back--acoustic tracks that are still strong lyrically but offer absolutely nothing engaging musically.

 

Sure, some of you value lyrics over the music itself and that's fine...but there's nothing to grasp anymore when Matthew Good is trying to sound like Bright Eyes, Pinback, Elliott Smith, City And Colour to a certain extent, & even the late Johnny Cash. I remember back in the good old days, some of my friends didn't appreciate Matthew Good (band) and always labelled him as boring--sadly, these days, I would have to concur. Don't get me wrong, I loved Disc 2 of In A Coma--hell Tripoli was fucking better than the original--it's always awesome to hear your favourite songs stripped down and even more awesome when the artist mixes it up a little.

 

Then a few months after, Matthew Good starts having solo acoustic shows at smaller venues--again, nothing wrong with that.

#1 It would be nice to hear some of these In A Coma songs live

#2 It would be nice to hear ANY past song stripped down

#3 Small venue = better sound, more intimate, more fan-oriented, less Hello Time Bomb kiddies and etc.

 

Nice for about a half an hour maybe. I know it's hard to admit but wouldn't it get a tad repetitive and *gasps* boring to stand and watch Matthew Good for a good hour? ESPECIALLY when he's playing newer songs and he'll expect the crowd to get into it which is a tad difficult when all of the songs would reminescent to eachother. EITHER WAY, it still wasn't a bad idea at all to have that acoustic small venue tour but maybe not the most heart-throbbing either. The problem I see is that it's a given that Matt is going to release an all acoustic cd in the near future. Again, this is not a bad thing but it's a letdown with what he is capable of doing. As some of you know, I'm not the hugest fan of White Light but it's still leaps away greater than what any of these demos are suggesting. Sure, they're just demos but quite frankly, I can't see him changing it up that significantly to make grand improvements for my sake.

 

For those of you who don't like reading, I'll sum it up for you lazy slobs: "Matt, don't leave your acoustic guitar dusted but don't glue it to your hand either".

[cringleman]

I think you make some valid observations, but (as someone who's been around listening since Beautiful Midnight) I believe we're witnessing a transitional period. Perhaps it's a stage where Matt sifts through some experimentation with the core of what his songs are about, by 'stripping it down,' as you put it (without ever really building it up), or perhaps it's permanent and he's moving towards folkier pastures.

 

I disagree with your value judgements (I certainly don't mind folk, and would happily watch two hours of Matt or someone else I liked playing acoustic tunes -- it would just be less energetic than the last show I saw), but I suppose we have nothing to debate, on that point. Simply a disagreement on principle.

 

What I do think you're overlooking is the possibility that the return to less elaborate performances (ie. man + guitar = music) does not necessarily mean that the music will continue to devolve into verse-verse-chorus versions of his wonderful lyrics until, eventually, he's playing open mic nights. We could very well end up with more interesting songwriting, simply because there's little to carry your work, when you're naught but man and guitar; more emphasis is placed on interesting lyrical content, and engaging melodical structures and musical arrangements.

 

Perhaps we'll get more songs that are divided into miniature movements, like 'We're So Heavy,' or songs that defy the old verse/refrain structure of most contemporary music. The possibilities are truly still endless.

 

Maybe he'll learn to play a mean bottleneck slide.

 

I understand your concern, though I do not share it, but fret not, my fellow New Brunswickan (I assume, due to the Moncton reference). Just because he has put down The Wizard, for now, does not mean that there's nothing out there that's cool to be written.

 

To sum: at least fifty percent of music is the artful use of silence -- perhaps Matthew Good needs to hear the space between his words again.

[Shortcut To Moncton]

Glad to see an educated response with an overdose of optimism.

 

PERHAPS he could very well write stronger arrangements and melodies even by voyaging as a single perfomer. PERHAPS we'll get more songs that are divided into miniature movements as you perfectly stated with We're So Heavy and I surely hope so. The possibilties ARE endless and that IS why I'm a little worried by some of the material that he's been producing over a little while.

 

But who knows--maybe he'll prove me wrong...and surely I hope that he does.

[nerd glasses]

For what it's worth, I'm new here but a longtime fan of over 10 years.

 

I don't feel the same concern you do 'cause I personally like where he's headed. His track record is that of every release being quite different from the last. While the next record may not prove to your liking either, the possibility is there that you may like the one after. Ya' know?

With me, it's always been a couple of songs per record that make it really hard for me to choose a favourite album because my indifference to them stands out when I have to think about it. Avalanche if not for SFAG, BM if not for FXR or HTB, etc. I imagine feeling 'meh' toward FXR would get me a flame or two! :angry:

 

I don't think anyone can really argue with your feelings about the newer music - logically impossible! They are just demos and rough sketches of songs from what I can gather thus far. All we can do is wait (sounds like a job for Captain Obvious, I know. ;) ) I hope you end up liking it though, if only for the sake of not feeling alienated from a favourite artist.

[timotheory]

I understand completely how you feel. It is a little tough seeing an artist that made incredible tracks, which some may refer to as epics, like Avalanche and Rabbits, go to a very stripped down and mellowed style. However, take a look at the man's history and it seems pretty clear to me that he probably won't remain a folk-artist for the rest of his career. Every album seems to have a pretty drastic change in performance and even genre. So I think it will be interesting to see what he does with the new songs that he's currently playing. I mean, who knows if they will be acoustic when they get released from a studio version. He may take a full band back to record these songs. That's even if these songs are going to be on the next album.

 

So I think we shouldn't worry about his musical direction before he has any plans for a new album yet. The possibilities of what it will be like are endless.

[cringleman]

'Educated' ... ha. Thanks, Moncton.

 

I think the consensus is that if you don't like the folk, then there's a good chance the winds will change. It's like the weather out here in the Maritimes: if you don't like it, wait a minute.

 

Of course, it's important to note that when Matthew Good started out, he was basically a folk musician, and he ended up releasing some pretty rockin' tracks a few years down the line, so perhaps things just run in cycles.

 

I realize I'm being quite optimistic, but I don't see any reason to decide to be pessimistic -- there may be evidence of continued folkiness (not that I'd mind, but for argument's sake ...), but it's in my own best interest to wait and see what the next couple of albums are like (even the greatest have had low points).

 

A change of musical partners could help him out, too -- you can hear the lack of Dave Genn's influence since MGB split up (just an observation of difference -- no values implied), and it makes you wonder what would happen if he found someone he was amenable co-writing with again.

 

I like this discussion, and I, too, hope you don't end up alienated by any of Good's possible new directions -- the disullusionment of losing your favourite artist is a weird shot. Made me question everything I listened to, when it happened.

[Shortcut To Moncton]

Just to let you people know, I actually am a fan of his early folky stuff. In fact, I love the History Teacher set but I just don't see a point of going back to his early, early roots when he's already covered that, matured and moved on. One of my favourite songs on Ghetto is Native Son and that's about as folky as it gets for a full band. I also do enjoy Hopeless but that's leaning into alt. country territory (though, if he ever made a full album like that, I'm--I'm not sure what I'd do).

 

Nevertheless, just with these new songs, he doesn't seem to put a lot of enthusiasm and passion into these new tracks. To throw out another comparison, he's sounding like a modern Frank Black (Pixies) and is really dumbing down into bland acoustic/folk rock. If we want to compare acoustic tracks then, let's do it: Look at Whispering In The Dark, or Entresol ...and then look at a song like Breath Of A Nation--it might be a personal thing but I'm just not feeling it anymore; it seems forced that he's obligated to make political statements rather than to reach down into his heart instead of his brain like he did in the old days.

 

I really do think that Dave Genn brought a lot to the table with BM/AOB and it would be beneficial to create a dynamic duo again--someone who can keep Matt on his tippy-toes.

[cringleman]

To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard a lot of the demos, yet. To translate further: I haven't scratched together enough of this "NF cash" to download that much of it. I'm a little out of my depth comparing the passion he puts into it now, therefore, as compared to earlier, if I haven't heard the demos.

 

I understand that point, though, and I'll just assume your observations to be valid -- you used to hear such fire and bile in his voice, back in the old days (or real regret and disappointment, as the case was), and if that's gone, then it won't be the same.

 

I've been hearing a lot of disillusionment, lately: with the folks he relied on, in Avalanche, and with geopolitics, for White Light. I probably let it go by without complaint for two albums because I imagine that's what he genuinely feels, but it won't hold true for another album. I guess I really understand what you're saying.

 

He doesn't just have to think something, he has to feel it, too (or, at least, that has to come out in the music). It's plain that he thinks plenty. Music is emotion, after all, tempered or forged though it may be by the mind.

 

It seems like it may be blasphemous, in some circles, these days, to suggest that Genn was good for MGB's music, but it feels like since he's left, there's been a sonic edge taken off the tunes. Maybe his greatest contribution was just making Matt really mad and frustrated, but he did lend something.

 

(And I'd hope for no full albums of Hopeless clones, as well, but being the loyal schmuck that I am, I'd probably buy it anyway.)

[rsn]

Cringleman,

 

I couldn't agree with you more ...and the fire sale of his electric guitars sadly looks as though his next musical direction has been chosen.

 

HC fan since 1998

 

RSN

[WinstonSmith357]

Matthew Good is trying to sound like Bright Eyes, Pinback, Elliott Smith, City And Colour to a certain extent, & even the late Johnny Cash

Edited August 7, 2006 by WinstonSmith357

[driftinginfluence]

I think that, while anyone may feel what they want about Matt, he is not conciously writing folk songs, he's just doing what comes naturally. Being in the postition he's in right now, he can't really record full band demos, to his liking anyway (the drums on Garage Band can only do so much, plus remember, its not like he's played drums very much), and add that to the fact that he's going thorugh a difficult time in his life, so he's just writing what pours out of him. As far as the political material not coming from his heart, I don't agree with that, how can you be sure? I would say that can't get shot or tidal wave is much more honest than a song like Boom! by System or any Rage song (though i love Rage and System has their moments). I don't care if your the Beatles or Radiohead or anyone, you play 2 hours worth of material just vocals and an acoustic guitar, alot of it is going to sound similar. I doubt Matt cares if anyone thinks he's making a rock record, or a revolutionary record, or whatever, he's prob just doing what he feels is right. He also did say he wrote half a really trashy rock record, so who knows. I myself like the new songs, and can't wait to hear them on record. I will add that playing solo acoustic is extremely difficult and the majority of artists out there could not pull it off, Matt can.

 

Trying to sound like City and Colour? give me a break, dallas 's solo stuff wasn't really released until last year (cept the demos, which very few peopel heard anyway), Matt's written acoustic songs for years (History teacher demos, throw away, so long mrs. smith, fated) plus Matt's stuff sounds nothign like dallas or any other artists mentioned, cept for maybe bob dylan, which is a fucking compliment to say the least.

[Shortcut To Moncton]

Notice how I said "City And Colour to a certain extent"--I'm very aware of when this side project came about. I should have said "sounds like" instead of "trying to sound like" but it doesn't make a different as the final product is all that matters...not the intentions.

 

BUT, WinstonSmith357, just because artists came out well after Matthew Good does not mean that he cannot sound like them TODAY--that's just being a little ignorant...and why yes, music only exists after Nirvana for me. I mean who exactly is Frank Black (or shall I say Black Francis) anyway?

 

Though, I can see what you mean when you suggest that these political based tracks can be heartfelt situations for him; they may affect him in an ideological sense and trigger him to splatter some ink together. Okay then. But I for one, consider music to be more of a personal level when it's based around interpersonal conflicts rather than differences involving the state of current affairs.

[cringleman]

I will, first, clarify my political/emotional comment: listen to 'North American For Life' and then to either 'Born to Kill' or 'While We Were Hunting Rabbits.'

 

In 'Born to Kill,' Matt sounds damn near choked up, and in 'Rabbits' the song sounds like a full-blown epiphany. 'North American' just sounds a little snarky. I like 'NAFL,' but all I'm saying is that there seemed, in my opinion, to be a lot more emotional inflection is his delivery of some of the older material. I think he feels as strongly about the ideas he's been pushing, lately, as he ever did about the events that spawned 'Running for Home,' and I'm just waiting to see him get voice-strainingly angry, or heart-tearingly sad about the kids being killed in Darfur, Afghanistan and Iraq (to name but a few) just as he did about things an album or two ago.

 

Lastly, before this devolves into flames and arguments over how chronologically-appropriate someone's comparisons might be (I wouldn't get a comparison between MG and emo, no matter how hard someone tried, and I still don't hear MG and City and Colour, but I let that slide, because it's irrelevent to the argumentation), let's just step back and look specifically at what we're talking about. I think everyone knows Matt isn't trying to sound like Bright Eyes, anyway (it would make me very sad, if he were). Screw the semantics.

 

No one needs to defend Matt's music from an onslaught of torch-and-pitchfork-bearing critics that will drive him from future recordings: we're just talking about what we hear, and what sort of things we forsee in the future.

[PsychoLamb]

My thoughts: He hasn't disappointed before, so I'll assume he'll pull it off again.

[WinstonSmith357]

Sorry Moncton, the point I was trying to make is that music is filled with artists being influenced by others that came before them. I could have made that point with more tact.

 

I still think comparisons of that nature don't consider the nuances of each artist.

 

Matthew Good's new tunes have a darker sensibility and certain accessibility than many other current recording musicians these days.

 

I personally think music can be about more than just heart felt interpersonal relationships. Bob Dylan's "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall" is a good example. That song had a huge influence on the youth at the time. It wasn't about a girl or personal anguish caused by another person. It was about the anguish caused by a society living under the shadow of nuclear conflict. Many identified with it despite the obscure lyrics the song contained. When Dylan starting writing less "political" songs, thousands of people wanted to tear out his throat for it.

 

Songs like "Tidal Wave" and "Black Helicopter" seem to be attempts to tap into the collective unconscious of those who pay attention to the news. These are fucked up times for those that pay attention to the news.

 

I

[cringleman]

Well said.

[Shortcut To Moncton]

[Just FYI, I was just going to hit submit with a lengthy post but I didn't--instead I'll just type a summary of my angst towards what this has become.]

 

 

This has now sadly turned into a discussion about lyrics in my musical discussion thread. I for one, could fucking care less if Bob Dylan wrote during a nuclear conflict that influenced the youth. Sorry for my slander but this is pissing me off. Bob Dylan could barely keep his voice together not to mention play anything courageous musically. Please.

 

I apoligize for even throwing out my comment about a preference for interpersonal conflicts for this single artist--I am so sorry! There's nothing more subjective than lyrics in music...nothing. Some people prefer hearing lyrics with a left-wing political bias, see: Matthew Good, RATM, Radiohead, Sonic Youth. Or a right-wing bias, see: Godsmack, 3 Doors Down, Pantera. Some artists write about drug addiction, see: Alice In Chains (the entire Dirt album), The Melvins, Nirvana. Some prefer writing about astrology, see: Dredg, Hum, Dream Theater, Godspeed! You Black Emperor. Others enjoy writing non-serious tracks with a satirical twist: Pixies, Jane's Addiction, early R.E.M. Thrills, cars, chicks, girls: AC/DC, Motley Crue, Poision, Ratt. Pubescent teenage relationships: Fall Out Boy, All American Rejects, Simple Plan, Panic! At The Disco.

 

Crusader, lock this thread up.

[driftinginfluence]

[Just FYI, I was just going to hit submit with a lengthy post but I didn't--instead I'll just type a summary of my angst towards what this has become.]

 

 

This has now sadly turned into a discussion about lyrics in my musical discussion thread. I for one, could fucking care less if Bob Dylan wrote during a nuclear conflict that influenced the youth. Sorry for my slander but this is pissing me off. Bob Dylan could barely keep his voice together not to mention play anything courageous musically. Please.

 

I apoligize for even throwing out my comment about a preference for interpersonal conflicts for this single artist--I am so sorry! There's nothing more subjective than lyrics in music...nothing. Some people prefer hearing lyrics with a left-wing political bias, see: Matthew Good, RATM, Radiohead, Sonic Youth. Or a right-wing bias, see: Godsmack, 3 Doors Down, Pantera. Some artists write about drug addiction, see: Alice In Chains (the entire Dirt album), The Melvins, Nirvana. Some prefer writing about astrology, see: Dredg, Hum, Dream Theater, Godspeed! You Black Emperor. Others enjoy writing non-serious tracks with a satirical twist: Pixies, Jane's Addiction, early R.E.M. Thrills, cars, chicks, girls: AC/DC, Motley Crue, Poision, Ratt. Pubescent teenage relationships: Fall Out Boy, All American Rejects, Simple Plan, Panic! At The Disco.

 

Crusader, lock this thread up.

you obviously have never listened to bob dylan, listen to blonde on blonde about 9 or 10 times before you talk about musical ineptitude

[northshore]

My thoughts: He hasn't disappointed before, so I'll assume he'll pull it off again.

 

.

 

 

 

yup.

 

 

 

 

.

8 character min, wtf??

[rockstar]

I think it is being presumptuous (I think thats how its spelled?) to assume this acoustic tour is going to be a preview of the next album. I remember when songs like "4 minute mile" and "Can't get shot in the back" came out around Avalanche but were not on Avalanche. (I am aware of how 4 min. mile turned into Ex-Pats on a subsequent album).

 

His 2 solo albums are complete opposites of each other, and in a recent interview he said he is writing but hasnt decided on what direction his next album is going to be taking or when it will be done. So like I said, we are all assuming these songs will be on that record.

 

So wait and see before you judge. For all we know, these songs were written for this acoustic tour and nothing more.

[Seanathon]

On that note, I recall quite a few people, myself included, taking loser anthems as a preview to what was to come on AoB. And it wasn't even close.

 

I'm not sure I had a point other than what that guy ^ said.

[cringleman]

I'm glad this thread ain't locked.

 

"There's nothing more subjective than lyrics in music."

 

There are few more false assertions than that. Could you please try and offer justification for a statement so sweeping? You've no proof, and there's good reason why: this is a half truth.

 

Lyrics are, in fact, very subjective. You mention content as your example, and there are surely other possibilities. Some prefer straightforward lyrics, while others prefer poetic ambiguity. I have no qualms with you, there.

 

The flip side is that music, itself is highly subjective. Prove to me whether Mozart or Bach is superior. There's a very, very good reason that there are a hojillion different 'Hundred Greatest Guitar Solos' lists. While technical difficulty can be gauged to a certain degree in musical composition, and complexity can be measured on a rough, relative scale, there is no "better" or "worse."

 

You also make the flaw of citing only examples of rock and its derivatives: let's expand this to all music.

 

Some prefer country with a female vocalist (regardless of what she's singing, or what she looks like), and some prefer men. Some prefer classical to everything else. Some prefer music composed of nothing but close vocal harmony, and I, personally, am fascinated with the Thai elephant orchestra.

 

There is no absolute measure of musical quality or skill (look a the genre of virtuoso guitar: arguments can be made for Steve Vai, Joe Satriani and Yngwie Malmsteen [blech], just to name a very few, and it's difficult to judge logical merit in any case [except that Malmsteen nearly plays the same damn scale for every "song" he has]).

 

You need to understand, very clearly, that almost all music is entirely subjective, unless you subscribe to Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality.

 

I can make arguments about why Matt Good's music is vastly superior to 98 Degrees' catalogue, but I cannot prove that I am conclusively right. I believe that his lyrics and his music are better to a degree that makes comparison an insult to his craft, but I can't write a logical proof of it.

 

Lyrics are no more subjective than melody, harmony, timbre, rhythm, groove, content, context, delivery ... I could go on.

 

If we're being honest with ourselves, demonstrating conclusive quality in any art has been a philosophical nightmare for centuries. No one can do it (except Pirsig, who's in a whole different ballpark, playing a strange, lonely, lovely game).

 

(As an aside, I just got junk mail allegedly from the "Folger's Coffee Ninja." What the hell?)

[WinstonSmith357]

You are wise Cringleman. Thank you for writing this post so I didn't have to.

 

We live in an unfortunate time where people believe they possess a better taste in music than everyone else does.

 

There was a time when young people listened to LPs with their friends. Now, people will listen to their iPods by themselves. Others will go to online forums and anonymously voice their distain of music on other peoples

[Shortcut To Moncton]

Sorry, I haven't been on here for a while. Cringleman, there's no way that someone could possibly stand a chance to argue with that--and I won't even begin to. You won. And I lost. Good game.

 

Just to throw this out to the other guy (though it has no relevance here at all) I never owned an iPod/mp3 player or even a cell phone in my life. I'm very square when it comes to Generation I products (we're passed Generation Y as far as I'm concerned)--I still prefer VHS tapes over DVD on any given day; nothing beats manually fast-forwarding material.

 

I've been stuck on this page for a while--I've been having an dicussion with someone on MSN about sexuality and resisting temptation so let me just hit reply while I'm here. Sorry to waste your time reading this.

[cringleman]

Reading anything is very rarely a waste of time.

 

I also accept no victory: while lyrics may not actually be more subjective than anything else (at least, it's impossible to measure whether or not they are), the main thrust of your argument would still stand, simply because it's more than the content of Matt's lyrics that have been changing, lately.

 

However, the thread did get sort of locked into lyrical content, long, long ago, for some reason. It's funny, sometimes, when people automatically equate music and poetry.

 

Really, music is to poetry as painting is to sculpture, if not even to a greater degree.

 

Make more threads like this, man, 'cause this was enjoyable -- beats the hell out of having to pretend that Snakes on a Plane isn't actually happening.