endofanera wrote:

yut wrote:Yep! And we all know the best reason to listen to a band is how they look.

You were the one who started mocking how bands look, dumbass.

Face it, you were hoist on your own petard.

No. I simply was making the point that shoegaze is a genre that is set in stone. There probably are the 10 commandments (ok, maybe 5 or 6 commandments -- nothing complicated here) of shoegaze carved into stone in some dreary English town.

So, as my images pointed out, shoegaze is SO DEFINED that the "artists" even need to look a certain way. Gae mall clothing, gae hair with the long bangs or the "bob" cut, and a general sort of gender ambiguity.

And, as the images of IQ depict, these are middle aged men who look nothing alike, nor really put much effort into their look. Are you even allowed to have facial hair and be in a shoegaze band? Or maybe it's the sheer lack of testosterone amongst shoegaze artists?

No, the IQ band photo just shows that you can be in a great, artistic rock band with a diverse, ecclectic sound, and NOT have to look like everyone else in the same genre. For a band that takes after Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd, there's no bellbottoms and frilly medieval blouses here.

The Marillion one was cut off, but if it's not Marillion with Fish, I'm not interested in defending them.

yut wrote:This notion that "shoegazer music is beyond classification" is a tautology. To even post something like that on a thread about shoegazer music is really funny. Why are you posting on this thread? If the category doesn't really exist, how do you even recognize it amongst all of these threads? Is it just because simpletons like me tend to lump these bands that all sound alike and look alike into a genre? How primative of me

Maybe I wasn't quite clear: my argument had nothing to do with the music itself. We could be talking about any kind of music...there is nothing special about the music that goes by the name "shoegazer" that renders it "beyond classification." I think a few "shoegazer" bands are really good, some are OK, and the rest really blow. The point was about labeling and how it misses the mark. That's it. Moreover, you put words in quotation marks that I did not write.

In fact, I found an old post of yours that really was very similar to the point I myself was trying to make:

yut wrote:I don't believe "indie" rock exists at all. What is it really? It's just a band that doesn't make much money. The Meat Puppets are a hippie country band, but are (or I guess were?) indie becuase of their label - SST. If they looked like Kenny Chesney and were signed to Atlantic, they would simply be country.

Bands like The Killers have tended to blur the lines between "indie" and "commercial". Let me clarify... They're commerical. They're part of the sound that's "all the rage", and well, sounding like everyone else who is (or looks) "cool" now, is not independent.

At best "indie" is an economic term, but there are lots of struggling musicians, even rock ones, that never use the term themselves, and would never be labelled that by anyone else.

Pre-1991, it was pretty clear what was independent and what wasn't... But now, with labels like Matador and Sub Pop, really, these are just companies that want to make profits too. At what level of vertical or horizontal integration do we deem that a record company is no longer independent?

You see... The term is very problemmatic.

My spelling is better than yours though.

Shut up Walter.

yut wrote:No, the IQ band photo just shows that you can be in a great, artistic rock band with a diverse, ecclectic sound, and NOT have to look like everyone else in the same genre. For a band that takes after Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd, there's no bellbottoms and frilly medieval blouses here.

I like this picture of the IQ's lead singer, Peter Nicholls:



Now compare it to this famous Peter Gabriel photo:

Yes... and Peter Nicholls also used to wear makeup, very much like Peter Gabriel in the 70's. He does not sound like Peter Gabriel. If you're looking for someone who sounds like Peter Gabriel, Fish is your man (but his lyrics are better, at least in my opinion, and he sounds like a cross between Gabriel and Collins).

First, I never brought up IQ or Marillion in this thread. I did in the Cheer-Accident one to say that these are progressive rock bands, and Cheer-Ax are prog metal, like Dream Theater, Opeth, or Fate's Warning (and these bands don't sound that much alike). You must have taking my mention of these bands as some sort of indication that they're my favorite bands... No... I do enjoy their music a lot, but they're not the best of the progressive world...

So some latch-key kid high on an insulin rush after downing a bowl of microwave macaroni and "cheese" decided to post pics of IQ and Marillion, to show how stupid these guys look (back in 1984)... completely missing my point that people in the shoegazer genre look and dress alike.

If you wanted to really make fun of IQ, get the band photo from "The Wake" album. They look like new wave douche bags and Orford is wearing a freakin' keyboard tie. Believe me, IQ and Marillion are not about looking cool, or sounding "cool". Shoegaze is for 16-18 year olds who are in the homosexual/narcissistic stages of human psychological development that people tend to go through (and yes, I still think psychology is crap, but it does explain a lot about people with un-examined lives). Stuff like neo-progressive rock is for people who are mature enough to like rock music for the music, and not what the performers are wearing.

Peter Nicholls may look like Peter Gabriel... But does he look like Fish, Neal Morse, or Roine Stolt? No... These are all artists in the neo-progressive genre (and this is a real genre -- they are not beyond classification) and they don't look alike. Peter Gabriel is NOT a neo progressive artist, and IQ do not sound like Peter Gabriel's "So" album or ANY of his solo albums.

I think the confusion here is that a lot of these performers I am speaking of have gone through "phases" in their careers... Whereas, shoegazers sound the same, album after album... So I can see how the erroneous comparison of PG and PN could happen, but "Subterranea" does not sound like "So" in the slightest way...

IQ went through a pop phase when Nicholls left the band and was replaced by a very poppy singer. Marillion turned much more pop-oriented after Fish left... But shoegazer bands show no such development. It's the same bowl of oatmeal every morning, whether you call it Slowdive or My Bloody Valentine.

So you're clever attempt to "call me" on this has backfired... If a neo progressive artist looks like a pop-rock artist, that doesn't really depict neo-progressive rock as a fashion-bound genre of music. But the IQ band photo you so graciously supplied does illustrate this... They're allowed to have different hair cuts, heck, even a gae moustache or two.

But yeah, I guess shoegazer's don't wear cardigans and have similar gae hairdoos, just like disco punk bands don't wear suits and ties... They're all about the art... Interpol, The Killers, MBV, Slowdive, Ride... After all, they look like they work in art galleries! And David Lynch is so damn profound!!!

Second, I will not defend IQ or Marillion as being original bands. I will be the first one (and I've said this again and again) to say they sound an awful lot like Genesis, Yes, and Pink Floyd. IQ have some Rush tendencies, and even had an album or two produced by Terry Brown.

That said, Tony Banks is very flattered with the work of Martin Orford. From what I read, he was so touched, it almost brought him to tears that someone would be so influenced by his work.

That said, Fish has some of the most touching and sincere lyrics I have ever heard. The problem with Gabriel's Genesis, is that it's a bunch of privaledged rich kids trying to relate to the working class (see Selling England). That said, it's one of my favorite albums. But I think Fish lives the life, and writes what he knows... Gabriel can only speculate as to what it's like to be below the upper class... and it shows in the lyrics... He's a very well intentioned rich kid... Fish is much more real in his lyrical output.

But neo-progressive rock is not the most original genre. The bands are deeply mired in a 70's progressive rock sound culture, and extend it by introducing new-wave and contemporary rock elements.

If you want original artistic music, look at the genre of avant-progressive rock (5uu's, Thinking Plague, Sleepytime). Also zeuhl is another genre that has amazingly creative offerings.

I didn't bring up IQ or Marillion (on this thread), and I'll be the first one to say they're a bit derivative. Still, I own every IQ album, and every 82-88 Marillion album. I like the sound, but I'm not the one with the pretentious "art" bullshit, saying they can't be classified. They are neo-progressive rock bands. They are in a genre that has certain characteristics. This is why I can say that IQ is not a death metal band or a salsa band.

And again... These guys don't look alike. Nicholls may look like Gabriel, but they are not in the same genre of music. So the point is not made at all... If you can find a picture of Nicholls looking like Fish, I'd like to see it. That would be a more fitting way to try to convince me that neo-progressive rock is about clothing and hairstyles...

tipcat wrote:Maybe I wasn't quite clear: my argument had nothing to do with the music itself. We could be talking about any kind of music...there is nothing special about the music that goes by the name "shoegazer" that renders it "beyond classification." I think a few "shoegazer" bands are really good, some are OK, and the rest really blow. The point was about labeling and how it misses the mark. That's it. Moreover, you put words in quotation marks that I did not write.

So deathmetal shouldn't be classified as such? If I have a friend who's into death metal, and I ask "Can you recommend an artistic and techinical death metal band", should he look blankly at me and say "what's death metal?"

I think even post-modern influenced sociologists into the ethnographic side of things will come up with classifications. For example, in Frank Katz's book "Seductions of Crime", he uses classifications of street criminals that they themselves have come up with -- "The Badass", for example.

tipcat wrote:]In fact, I found an old post of yours that really was very similar to the point I myself was trying to make:

yut wrote:I don't believe "indie" rock exists at all. What is it really? It's just a band that doesn't make much money. The Meat Puppets are a hippie country band, but are (or I guess were?) indie becuase of their label - SST. If they looked like Kenny Chesney and were signed to Atlantic, they would simply be country.

Bands like The Killers have tended to blur the lines between "indie" and "commercial". Let me clarify... They're commerical. They're part of the sound that's "all the rage", and well, sounding like everyone else who is (or looks) "cool" now, is not independent.

At best "indie" is an economic term, but there are lots of struggling musicians, even rock ones, that never use the term themselves, and would never be labelled that by anyone else.

Pre-1991, it was pretty clear what was independent and what wasn't... But now, with labels like Matador and Sub Pop, really, these are just companies that want to make profits too. At what level of vertical or horizontal integration do we deem that a record company is no longer independent?

You see... The term is very problemmatic.

Nice try, but there is a subtle nuance to this argument you have failed to notice... "indie rock" as I believe it should be is "independent rock" or rock without major label patronage. That said, you can still say a band like Gorguts is "independent rock" and "death metal". They're on a non-major death metal label, which is independent rock...

However, did you read my post when I mentioned how people think "indie" is a genre in itself? For example, no one would seriously call Gorguts an "indie" band. Everyone would say they are death metal.

So you see, I'm not talking about a genre here, but an economic classification. This does not nullify genres in the slightest. Death metal still exists. It's just that people would laugh at you if you said Gorguts is a killer indie band... They're not on MTV and playing on the Tonight Show. They're underappreciated, struggling musicians, just like any band that sounds like Tar or Slint or Sebadoh or whatever archetype of "indie" they take on... To me, "independent rock" should be an economic classification, but it is not. It is a super-genre as far as most people are concerned. If you want to go ahead an invent your own language, where genres don't exist, fine... The rest of us believe that "death metal" is a different sound than "smooth jazz". There are connotations of a certain sound, and "indie" is a certain group of sounds...

tipsy cat wrote:My spelling is better than yours though

Great... ride that rocket. See if you can get a career as a spell checker.

It may be because you're closer to grammer school, whereas for the past 10 years I've been writting gibberish computer code...

But maybe, if I work hard, I can spell perfectly and get a job as a spell checker too! Then I will go out and by a 700 series BMW and get some riblets at Applebee's.

To quote you (quoting Triumph): 'I keed!' How fast do you type? Just curious.

Pretty quick, but my style is like a cross between hunt/peck and touch typing... I don't look at the keys, but I only use 2-3 fingers on each hand.

I do find Triumph to be very amusing. I recently rented the DVD with a coupla hours of all the schtick. The funniest thing is the MTV video awards and Pauly Shore. He's like "Hey Pauly, the 1995 awards are next door", and Pauly just runs away like a puss... Most of the celebs take the criticism. I mean, he says Bon Jovi sucks to their faces, same with Sugar Ray. But Pauly Shore knows he is a has-been, and will probably never make a comeback... A fatal blow dealt by a insulting comic dog puppet with an eastern european accent! Eminem is also poor sport and gets up with his posse like he's gonna throw down -- on a puppet dog?!? Yeah, that Eminem is a real badass!

good, but sometimes bad

Marsupialized wrote:Any music designed to be listened to under the influence of psychedelic drugs is ok in my book.
I have a shoegazer obsessed friend and he has played me some stuff that just blew me away.

Being that said friend, I'm going to go ahead and make my NOT CRAP official.

Early psychedelic Verve, MBV, and Ride being the best of the bunch.

burun wrote:Did they do that song, I think it was called "All In The Mind"?

That was an awesome song. I would like to find it again someday, now that I think of it. I gotta go look.

That's the Verve's first single. It never appeared on an album.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UIDGSSLDhg