Jump to content


NF Supporters
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • NF$


Posts posted by borntohula

  1. i wasn't suggesting you were a bandwagoneer, i was just saying that MPP is a shitty album.


    to be fair, i guess i should post my top ten so you can pick on something i listen to:


    1. dirty projectors - bitte orca

    2. (tie) isis - wavering radiant and zu - carboniferous

    3. ohbijou - beacons

    4. the marked men - ghosts

    5. two fingers - s/t

    6. bat for lashes - two suns

    7. zola jesus - the spoils

    8. grizzly bear - veckatimest

    9. future of the left - travels with myself and another

    10 - mos def - the ecstatic

  2. Top 10 Albums:


    01: Sunset Rubdown - Dragonslayer

    02: Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavillion

    03: Bill Callahan - Sometimes I Wish We Were An Eagle

    04: Mount Eerie - Wind's Poem

    05: Patrick Wolf - The Bachelor

    06: Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest

    07: Fuck Buttons - Tarot Sport

    08: Japandroids - Post-Nothing


    10: Brand New - Daisy


    animal collective? you used to have good taste.


    and yes, the new isis album is great.

  3. god, borntohula is such a dick lately. it's kinda hot.




    Just because you throw a bunch of good musicians together, doesn't necessarily mean they're going to produce good music.




    i'll be the first to admit that this record really appeals to the high school kid in me who still loves dave grohl and has wanted him and homme to sing together since he first dave yell "HAY" in "song for the dead."


    i like this record, but it is definitely front-loaded. i agree that the longer, jammier songs are a bit aimless, and aren't really justified beyond the fact that the three particular musicians in the band are playing together, so we might as well be happy with what they've given us. that said, in parts where the album does lag, grohl's drums add a definite punch and life that save the album from being as boring a slog as it might have turned out to be.


    my other problem is that it's way too homme-centric. he has this tendency of making all his projects sound so similar. it's good in one respect because it means he's consistent, and has a definitive sound, but at the same time, it's a bit overbearing. that his production alone could make the arctic monkeys sound like QOTSA is a feat in itself, but as those who have heard the album can attest to, it didn't really work out in their favour. to me, JPJ's personality doesn't really come out as much as it should have, and this record isn't much of a departure from what grohl and homme have done already, so it seems a bit redundant. aside from all that though, i can't stop listening to the record, because above all else, it's just a joy to listen to. from a music-nerd standpoint, but also because the band clearly had a good time writing these songs.

  4. wikipedia: New Wave is a genre of music that emerged in in the middle to late 1970s alongside punk rock. The term at first generally was synonymous with punk rock before being considered a genre in its own right that incorporated aspects of electronic and experimental music, mod subculture, and disco and 1960's pop music, as well as much of the original punk rock sound and ethos, such as an emphasis on short and punchy songs.[1][2] During the 1980s in the United States New Wave became a catch-all term that applied to new music acts in general and synthpop and British acts in particular. The 1990s and 2000s have seen revivals, and a number of acts that have been influenced by a variety of New Wave styles.


    quote from wikipedia all you like, but that's really not a convincing argument in the least, especially the part:


    The term at first generally was synonymous with punk rock before being considered a genre in its own right that incorporated [...] much of the original punk rock sound and ethos, such as an emphasis on short and punchy songs.


    new wave is punk but it is not because it also uses synthesizers and ppl dress funny.


    like i mentioned before, there are tonnes of bands that sit outside the definitions of "new wave" that confuse your affirmation that it is somehow an absolute thing.


    these guys use synths, but you'll never find them on a new wave comp.



    david bowie used synths around the same time, having gone from this:



    to this:



    in a matter of five years. was he new wave?

  5. i don't really see a divide between new wave and punk. new wave is what record companies called punk when they realized that they got to the party way too late and needed to package punk as something new and exciting in order for people to go crazy about it (again) and sell records.


    some of the best "new wave" acts were punks in the late 70s. blondie, talking heads, the jam, elvis costello and even the b-52s. can you really point out a time where these bands stopped being punk and started being "new wave"???

  6. idolizing rock stars is bullshit.


    idolatry and being inspired by someone are two very different things. your inspiration isn't any less "bullshit" just because it comes from your father. don't expect anyone to care about who your hero is or what he has done if you're going to belittle everyone else's experience.


    at this point in my life, dave eggers is probably my biggest inspiration. the vast amount of work that he has is alone impressive, but quality and integrity of that work goes above and beyond simply being a lofty number. he approaches his writing with a style of openness and humour that i envy and can only hope to some day match. what he does with his time is the sort of proof-in-the-pudding that encourages me to practice whatever it is that i preach. anyone who has heard of or seen the 826 National program in action can attest to eggers' achievements and his ability to inspire.

  7. i do have a twitter account. i like it as an alternative to facebook, because it's a bit more concerned with the why and the how as opposed to just what. the emphasis is on what you're saying, as opposed to what you look like. yes, it allows you to follow celebrities, but the potential to actually converse with people you've never met is what really appeals to me. that's something that facebook has failed on, on multiple accounts. why am i friends with people who dont' even talk to me? meanwhile, on twitter, i'm participating in discussions with some of my favourite music critics, which is an opportunity i would not have had otherwise. there's something about twitter that is very honest and non-hierarchical that way.


    all that said, not everything about twitter is so honourable and lovely. some people just retweet the trending topics and that's all they do. all the time. so there's still that element of seeing things at a very surface level. there are also those individuals who just report on what they ate and what store they're in at the moment, but that's not really twitter's fault. people are going to be empty, uninteresting and vacuous regardless of whatever technology they're using to announce it to the world. don't blame twitter, blame democracy.

  8. Seriously, if you haven't listened to Tangiers: Never Bring You Pleasure (2004), do yourself an honestagoodness favour and find it.

    Screw it, you won't find it... here it is. They've disbanded anyway.

    thanks for the tangiers link. i had heard about them back in the day, but was never really curious enough to listen. i've only listened once now, and i approve. not amazing stuff, but the songs are well written and i like the singer's delivery.



    I find it interesting that (at least as far as I can see) not one person put a single Nine Inch Nails album in any of their top 10 lists. I suck at making lists like this, so I'm not gonna try, but at the very least, Downward Spiral, and possibly Year Zero would be in there.

    for me, downward spiral is a great album, but it unfortunately came out in 1994, along with a whole slew of other albums that also rank very highly in my books. portishead's dummy, jawbox's for your own special sweetheart, jeff buckley's grace, blur's parklife, and beck's one foot in the grave all came out that year as well, and the latter album is probably one of my most favourite albums of all time, and definitely had to bump NIN out of the top spot for '94.


    Yeah, also no Bjork. I'd have to include something like Homogenic, 'cuz when that came out, I listened to it way too many times for my own mental health. Then again, I dunno if I'd put it above anything others have chosen...which is why I suck at top 10 lists, and won't do one.

    i'm not really surprised, given the kind of people who make up the majority of this forum. most of us are guys, in our twenties, and have an irritating soft spot for grunge. but top 10 lists of this scope and magnitude are always going to have blind-spots. i think that there's no bjork says a lot about us, but it also just says something about the inadequacies of organizing things in lists of 10. relating to my comment above, in any given year, there are dozens of albums worthy of being #1, and making that final decision is usually the equivalent of a coin toss. i could've put any number of albums on that list, in any order, and still be satisfied with what i chose.


    personally i do not think Nirvana has stood the test of time.

    have you listened to the radio lately? they're one of the few bands that hasn't released a new album this decade who manage to still get tonnes of radio play. so i'd say that people's love for them has definitely stood the test of time. even if you were saying their music hasn't stood the test of time, i'd question your ear and tell you to go back and listen to in utero.


    i think nirvana, as far as reputation is concerned, went through a period where everyone loved them, realized that everyone else loved them, and then immediately backed off on their nirvana-love-fest as it was uncool to like a band that were so ubiquitous in music. nirvana weren't amazing, and definitely were over-praised, but they were a solid band and had an amazing ability to synthesize so many disparate elements of post-punk. you can hear so many bands in their sound, and it works. i think they stand out for me, still, as part of that whole 'grunge' period because they were a counterpoint to the movement that supposedly popularized. lyrically and musically, they didn't dwell in the kind of dumb violent machismo world of someone like eddie vedder (who certainly improved with time), layne stayley or scott weiland (not so much). which is impressive, and that alone is worth noting.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.