Do you believe that bands/musicians need to push the boundaries of music to be considered "great"?

**Buzzkill** · 11-05-2011, 04:39 PM

I know this is a weird question, but I was thinking about the Black Keys. They're regarded by a lot of people as one of the great bands of the last few years, but I don't think they can qualify considering they just rehashed and refined a sound that had already been well established decades ago.

Brothers was a really good album in that it had a lot of awesome songs on it, but it really didn't do anything "new". So in my mind, they're a nice little band with a very accessible and enjoyable sound, but I can't consider them as one of this generation's "great" bands.

A lot of this hinges on what your definition of "great" is I guess.

**Kane Knight** · 11-05-2011, 05:29 PM

If you do something well, i t shouldn't matter if you push boundaries.

**El Vaquero de Infierno** · 11-05-2011, 05:46 PM

Probably more important that the band develops its sounds and is not afraid to try new things, rather than rehash the same stuff again and again. If the band should push boundaries whilst it does this then great, but if in developing their sound they tread over familiar ground of other bands, but do it better, then that is okay as well.

**Requiem** · 11-05-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzzkill

I know this is a weird question, but I was thinking about the Black Keys. They're regarded by a lot of people as one of the great bands of the last few years, but I don't think they can qualify considering they just rehashed and refined a sound that had already been well established decades ago.

Brothers was a really good album in that it had a lot of awesome songs on it, but it really didn't do anything "new". So in my mind, they're a nice little band with a very accessible and enjoyable sound, but I can't consider them as one of this generation's "great" bands.

A lot of this hinges on what your definition of "great" is I guess.

Nah. And especially nah to the example you used. Just needs to be good. I don't really agree with the comparison either. Like, sure they didn't do anything NEW, but look at the state of music in the last few years-ish. Compared to what radio-rock has become, and how certain genres have fallen out of the spotlight and others have come up, The Black Keys ARE pushing the envelope. I don't think you can expect bands to really come out with something completely new and unheard of these days. Everything has roots in other sounds, and there's just not a whole lot that hasn't been done. So to come out and just make music that kicks you in the teeth and takes a certain sound that may not appeal to everyone, but does that sound WELL, takes balls IMO.

You also have to look at more than just Brothers. It took 6 albums for them to get mainstream recognition, and I still never hear them on the radio. Over the course of those six albums, I think there is a little bit of something for everyone, but I wouldn't say they have a very accessible sound at all except to people who are really into music and 'classic' sounds. I have had a hard time turning people on to their music. Only a single friend of mine thinks they are as good as I do, and the rest just don't seem to "get it". I find their entire collection to be a fantastic progression that explores their depth as artists. From classic blues with their first album, to more experimental and guitar driven sound, and then gradually refining their sound and adding a bit of fullness to it. There's even a bit of a hip-hop vibe to some of their songs to show that they're not just blues musicians. Their albums never sound the same, and yet they still keep a familiar tone to their sound that you know is them.

**Requiem** · 11-05-2011, 06:30 PM

Really just comes down to this. I don't think every generation of music needs to be defined by a new sound. Music doesn't necessarily need to progress to the point where it sounds completely different than anything that came before it. It just needs to be done well, and still be it's own thing.

I don't view The Black Keys as copycats of anything. They have their own very distinct sound, but they obviously love and respect certain musicians that were a part of their lives growing up.

**Buzzkill** · 11-05-2011, 09:09 PM

I can't argue this without bringing up Animal Collective and Radiohead, which will automatically nullify my point of view to 99% of TPWW. But I still don't think Black Keys are one of "the greats". They are a great band in the coloquial sense, but not like "one of the greats", in my humble and obviously subjective opinion.

FRUITLESS ARGUMENT

**FakeLaser** · 11-06-2011, 01:14 PM

I wasn't sure, then I thought about what bands I really do consider "GREAT" and the bands that instantly came to mind were:

Radiohead
Sonic Youth
Animal Collective
Pink Floyd
Joy Division
The Beatles

These are all musicians who definitely pushed the boundaries of music, and because of it were incredibly influential on music as a whole. Also, they're some of my favorite bands, and at some point in my life, have considered or even still do consider them my "favorite" band.

To be a true "great" you have to offer something in the way of innovation. I think that applies to anything.

That doesn't mean you can't be a "great" band without re-inventing the wheel. Maybe "great" isn't the word we should be looking at.

I mean, there are plenty of bands I'd consider "great" without really changing things, but there are certain bands that are definitely in the upper echelon of music because not only were the great at what they did but they were great for other reasons, namely their innovation and influence.

I wouldn't consider The Black Keys to have a distinct sound or anything, they're pretty standard blues rock. But they're good at what they do. I'm not a huge fan of theirs or anything, but they are a good band. Great? No.

I dunno. I guess if I look at a band that I really do love... let's say... Deerhunter. I would call them a great band, and at times they may even push the "boundaries of music" though overall I'd say they're pretty much just a psychedelic punk rock band. But I would still consider them "great" because they are great musicians and great at what they do. Though I wouldn't put them in the same category as the bands I listed above.

**FakeLaser** · 11-06-2011, 01:17 PM

I guess I didn't really make my point there. My point is that you don't have to push boundaries to be just "great" but there's definitely a level above "great" that not even "great" bands can achieve without pushing boundaries, and pushing them successfully. Progression is important, as it is in any art, technology, etc.

**FakeLaser** · 11-06-2011, 01:21 PM

I also fail to see how The Black Keys push the envelope at all, as Requiem says. Though perhaps it's harder for me to see that as someone who listens to literally 0 mainstream radio. So to me, they sound like a pretty straightforward band. A band I'd have a friend listen to who doesn't really like indie but wants to hear an "indie" band and not be completely weirded out or alienated.

**Requiem** · 11-06-2011, 02:08 PM

They are not mainstream radio. They are not even 'standard' anything. Feel like all opinions of them stem from their Brothers album which is the only one to get mainstream attention of any kind, and is not an accurate representation of their body of work. -Six Albums-, and it doesn't seem like anyone who gives their opinion of the band has ever listened to the other work and has just brushed them off.

I could be wrong, on that. But, I have noticed a very obvious progression from one album to the next, where nothing sounds the same while still retaining their style.

To me, they have roots in blues, but they are so much more. Some experimental styles, some hip-hop beats. More just classic, kick your teeth in, rock and roll that still doesn't sound exactly like anything I've heard before. Again, it has roots. But I've never heard this particular sound before. Their style is pushing the envelope because in the past 10 years, it's a rare thing for a band to use an older sound and do it well enough to garner massive attention.

I am not lying when I say that I have -never- heard a song of theirs on the radio. Ever. I'm sure they play them somewhere, but even after Brothers, they are not even that mainstream.

I get that Radiohead did something fantastic. They popularized a 'new' sound and tried something before anyone else really caught on. But all music can't be defined by if it 'broke new ground' or not.

**Requiem** · 11-06-2011, 02:39 PM

This is all completely subjective anyways. I know at least ten people who think Radiohead are terrible. Legit terrible. I certainly don't agree with them, but those same people also don't give two shits about The Black Keys, and most of them listen to nothing but radio rock and 80's. One LOVES Pink Floyd, another LOVES Led Zeppelin. But if you had them listen to anything else on your list, they would probably just go 'meh' and turn it off.

So IDK. Main point is that I wouldn't blame you for not classifying TBK as an all-time great. But one day, when they've paid their dues, and people look back at this generation of music, they are going to get a lot of attention from music enthusiasts for trying something that wasn't guaranteed to sell records at the time. It's not a new sound, but it's new in that it's unexpected in this generation. To me, it sounds like nothing -currently- being played. It sounds similar to old classics sure, but compared to anything else that's out RIGHT NOW, it's in a world of its own.

That's why I feel they are pushing the envelope. They didn't make records with the intention of making millions. They made music because of their love of it, and did with 2 people what some bands can't even do with 4. They went to a sound they loved, and gradually refined it over the course of 6 albums (and a couple EPs)

From the lyrics, to some of the subtleties in their songs (think this is something only someone who really gets into the band would even care about.. but the subtleties in Dan's playing are incredible, and part of the reason I would consider them amazing). I just can connect with their music, and if something speaks to you on a personal level, then that makes it great. Everything in the way the singer/guitarist constructs his songs just makes me love them. The guitar is as much a part of the emotional impact of the music as the words are.

**FakeLaser** · 11-06-2011, 03:13 PM

Again, it's subjective, but they're pretty tame when it comes to experimentation in their music, IN MY VIEW.

However, to someone who doesn't listen to anything REMOTELY experimental (not saying that's you, Requiem, but the "atypical" person); I can see how they would seem like a "quirky" or "off beat" kind of band. Because compared to the stuff on the radio... they are. But the stuff on the radio represents a relatively small portion of the music that's out there. So in the grand scope of things, are they a "groundbreaking" or even "experimental" type of band? No.

Are they a good band? Yes. They play good music, drawing from some obvious influences, and they're clearly talented. But I wouldn't hold them to the same standard as some of the other bands I named.

The same could be said for a band like Muse. And I argue about Muse all the time. They're a good band, and clearly very talented. Matt Bellamy is a great guitarist. But where's the innovation? That doesn't take away from them being a good band, but it certainly doesn't put them in the same category as a band like Radiohead, whom they were influenced heavily by.

When all is said and done, I hope people look back at this generation and look at bands like The Black Keys and say they were a great band from this "era." Because they're one of the few indie bands that's garnered both mainstream approval and critical acclaim. Which is a feat in and of itself, but again, it's because their sound isn't really THAT FAR off base. It's inoffensive to your average listener. Meaning... it sounds similar to things they've heard before.

**Requiem** · 11-06-2011, 04:19 PM

Yeah I am definitely not saying they are the most experimental band I've heard. Far from it, so I agree, but I think it's definitely a part of their style. Just saying I don't think that defines a band's greatness. You keep saying that's not important in defining how good a band is, but then you just keep going back to 'groundbreaking' and 'experimental'. The most defining point, IMO, is the fact that they are a 2 person band (except for Brothers).

To me, their greatness is that they are a 'breath of fresh air' in a stale music industry (also my opinion. Haven't been that interested in much that's come out in recent years). I think that's where a lot of their acclaim is coming from, tbh. IMO, the best band to come out of the last decade. Not in a "Wow I've never heard this before, this is mindblowing" sort of way, but in a "Damn, I'm really fucking glad this music exists" way. To the genres you are interested in, you have probably heard a lot of good music in recent years. Stuff that I just wouldn't find interesting. So that's where my love and opinion of 'greatness' comes from with this band, and I think that's probably where a lot of their attention is coming from. I just plain haven't heard much recently that I would consider that good, or that hooked me for more than a month or so. I have listened to this band consistently for over a year and a half now and I'm still not tired of them in the least bit.

Think you have a different opinion of what a mainstream sound is too. Because I just don't think they sound even remotely similar to mainstream, and in my experience with trying to turn people on to this band, people seem to not think they are very accessible of a sound. Too 'rough' of a sound for most people or something. Seems more like your criteria for that is that it be 'rock and roll' or something. Dunno, just what I'm getting. You don't think it sounds that different from mainstream rock, but in the past 10 years, I haven't heard anything remotely close to the sound they put out. Just this crazy, overdriven/distorted guitar, howling/soulful vocals with real pain and sick drum beats that HAVE to be good to keep up with the rest of the music.

In case you haven't noticed, I am pretty much in love with this band. Over the past however many years, I have distanced myself from practically every musician I grew up listening to because I started realizing how much more there was to music, and how actual talent was far and between, and how everything was so overpolished that it all sounded the same and that the lyrics didn't even really mean anything because it's like they were written to sell, and not because the artist felt they meant anything. So to me, The Black Keys are shockingly fresh in that they don't shy away from doing whatever they want.

Have enjoyed this conversation. Thanks.

Don't think we're really arguing here. Just have differing opinions on how to classify a sound.

**Kane Knight** · 11-06-2011, 04:34 PM

lol innovation

**FakeLaser** · 11-06-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Yeah I am definitely not saying they are the most experimental band I've heard. Far from it, so I agree, but I think it's definitely a part of their style. Just saying I don't think that defines a band's greatness. You keep saying that's not important in defining how good a band is, but then you just keep going back to 'groundbreaking' and 'experimental'. The most defining point, IMO, is the fact that they are a 2 person band (except for Brothers).

To me, their greatness is that they are a 'breath of fresh air' in a stale music industry (also my opinion. Haven't been that interested in much that's come out in recent years). I think that's where a lot of their acclaim is coming from, tbh. IMO, the best band to come out of the last decade. Not in a "Wow I've never heard this before, this is mindblowing" sort of way, but in a "Damn, I'm really fucking glad this music exists" way. To the genres you are interested in, you have probably heard a lot of good music in recent years. Stuff that I just wouldn't find interesting. So that's where my love and opinion of 'greatness' comes from with this band, and I think that's probably where a lot of their attention is coming from. I just plain haven't heard much recently that I would consider that good, or that hooked me for more than a month or so. I have listened to this band consistently for over a year and a half now and I'm still not tired of them in the least bit.

Think you have a different opinion of what a mainstream sound is too. Because I just don't think they sound even remotely similar to mainstream, and in my experience with trying to turn people on to this band, people seem to not think they are very accessible of a sound. Too 'rough' of a sound for most people or something. Seems more like your criteria for that is that it be 'rock and roll' or something. Dunno, just what I'm getting. You don't think it sounds that different from mainstream rock, but in the past 10 years, I haven't heard anything remotely close to the sound they put out. Just this crazy, overdriven/distorted guitar, howling/soulful vocals with real pain and sick drum beats that HAVE to be good to keep up with the rest of the music.

In case you haven't noticed, I am pretty much in love with this band. Over the past however many years, I have distanced myself from practically every musician I grew up listening to because I started realizing how much more there was to music, and how actual talent was far and between, and how everything was so overpolished that it all sounded the same and that the lyrics didn't even really mean anything because it's like they were written to sell, and not because the artist felt they meant anything. So to me, The Black Keys are shockingly fresh in that they don't shy away from doing whatever they want.

Have enjoyed this conversation. Thanks.

Don't think we're really arguing here. Just have differing opinions on how to classify a sound.

Well yeah, we're definitely not arguing and I have enjoyed this debate.

I'm not really saying that greatness is defined by experimentation or innovation, but what I AM saying, or trying to say, is that bands that are capable of being innovative or experimental with their sound are in an upper echelon of greatness. So I acknowledge that a band like the Black Keys can be GREAT, but I just don't see them as being in that upper echelon.

And it is cool that they are a two person band. I mean, you see that more in more in today's music, though not with the success (or possibly, the talent) that the Black Keys exhibit. So yeah, they're talented, and it's awesome that two dudes produce that sound. When you say Brothers is NOT just the two of them... are you talking just live (ie they play with a band) or in the studio? Because I can think of a bunch of acts that are two guys or even a solo act and they tour with a band.

That's why Atlas Sound is so amazing. I mean, the music is incredible, and it's just Bradford Cox by himself. But not just in the studio... when he tours, he plays solo, and sounds like an entire band with an electro/acoustic guitar, a bunch of pedals and a harmonica. That's impressive.

**Requiem** · 11-06-2011, 08:46 PM

They did it themselves in the studio. Dan Auerbach is credited as doing guitar, bass, vocals, piano, production, engineer. Patrick, the drummer is credited as drums and production.

But when they play live they have a full band, which is a first. Before that album, the records were strictly guitar/drum albums and live shows were solely the two of them. Think Attack & Release toyed with some other instruments a little but when they did it live it was just the two of them and they adapted the music a little for that too.

Think Patrick has some sort of social anxiety or something too from watching him play in live shows. Dunno. /sortaofftopic

Really, they're a band that I wish I could force people to listen to cause I think there's so much subtlety to the music. lol Would light up a blunt and start their discography from the beginning and spend the entire day just listening to their music.

**Requiem** · 11-06-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FakeLaser

That's why Atlas Sound is so amazing. I mean, the music is incredible, and it's just Bradford Cox by himself. But not just in the studio... when he tours, he plays solo, and sounds like an entire band with an electro/acoustic guitar, a bunch of pedals and a harmonica. That's impressive.

Stuff like that definitely contributes to me really liking a band. When less people can put out a more incredible sound than some entire bands can manage to do, I can't help but be in awe of the talent. Just takes an immense creativity to play music in a less traditional sense.

That's part of the reason I find them to be so incredible. If they were a full band from the start, I don't think I'd be nearly as impressed with their music. I might enjoy it and think it was good, but doing more with less leaves you so much more room to expand into as the life of the band goes on. I really hope they are around for the next 15+ years making music. Brothers was essentially a reevaluation of their love of music. There were issues between them due to Patrick's relationship with his wife, and they stopped making music for a short while and didn't even speak for several months. He left his wife a bit later. Brothers was an album for the two of them essentially realizing how important the band was between them.

Recorded it in a cinder block building in the middle of nowhere in Alabama, with a bunch of mics, a guitar amp and a drum set.

**Requiem** · 11-06-2011, 09:11 PM

Link me to some music where 'less is more' that you think I would like. Keeping in mind I am pretty picky tbh. Weird is fine, but weird for the sake of being weird doesn't do it for me.

**FakeLaser** · 11-06-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requiem

Link me to some music where 'less is more' that you think I would like. Keeping in mind I am pretty picky tbh. Weird is fine, but weird for the sake of being weird doesn't do it for me.

Drum sounds made with his mouth

Dunno... I mean, I could post a bunch of stuff that is sampler driven. I don't really think that qualifies as "less as more" as it ends up being more layers of sound than the stuff I posted above.

**Requiem** · 11-06-2011, 11:08 PM

Diggin The Kills. Just downloaded a discography of all their studio albums.

**FakeLaser** · 11-07-2011, 12:51 AM

Yeah kinda thought out of all of those they'd be the one you'd enjoy.

**FakeLaser** · 11-07-2011, 12:52 AM

Midnight Boom is one of my fav albums of all-time, BTW

**DrA** · 11-07-2011, 04:11 PM

There are what, 200-500 billion stars in a galaxy, and just as many galaxies in the universe. I recently read an article where the universe may even be three times larger than initially believed. New research on exoplanets is now saying that one in ~200 stars have Earth like planets. Furthermore, the "cutting edge" theories in theoretical physics are suggesting that this isn't even close to being the only universe in existence. How is this even a question

**Kane Knight** · 11-07-2011, 06:34 PM

You forgot to mention how Superstring theory can apply to music.

**Kane Knight** · 11-07-2011, 06:35 PM

Is there a parallel universe in which the Black Keys are "innovative?"

Is there a parallel universe in which "innovative" isn't used to the point of being completely meaningless?

**RoXer** · 11-08-2011, 01:05 PM

Flaser do you like Cults?

**The Mask** · 11-08-2011, 06:10 PM

no

the pixies and REM have done stuff that probably hadn't really been done before, but i wouldn't say any of it was pushing boundries. doing the simple things well is enough to make a band great.

**The Mask** · 11-08-2011, 06:14 PM

fleetwood mac are a great band but i don't think rumours was particularly innovative, it was just lucky that it was a band that had been previously in relationships with each other and had got a bit messy and they made some great tunes out of it.

**FakeLaser** · 11-08-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoXer

Flaser do you like Cults?

Yeah, they're good. I went to their record release party and there are "relevant pictures" of FakeLaser with the band on Pitchfork.com (via hipster stereotypes)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mask

no

the pixies and REM have done stuff that probably hadn't really been done before, but i wouldn't say any of it was pushing boundries. doing the simple things well is enough to make a band great.

I guess I see this point. Pixies pretty much revolutionized the whole loud/soft dynamic seen in the following decade of alt rock/emo. But it's nothing COMPLEX. Definitely important in a "laid the groundwork" sense.

**Kane Knight** · 11-08-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FakeLaser

Yeah, they're good. I went to their record release party and there are "relevant pictures" of FakeLaser with the band on Pitchfork.com (via hipster stereotypes)

I guess I see this point. Pixies pretty much revolutionized the whole loud/soft dynamic seen in the following decade of alt rock/emo. But it's nothing COMPLEX. Definitely important in a "laid the groundwork" sense.

Mission of Burma did it first.

Pretty sure Frank Black Francis cites them as an influence, even.

MoB was even touring before rite of Spring, or whatever that DC band was called that is the granddaddy of emo.

They were also one of the first bands to use tape looping live. Despite being classified as "uneasy listening," they used it to Queen-like echo effects.

Not sure the Pixies, much as I love 'em, laid the groundwork there, and they definitely didn't see themselves as the first. They got the groundwork from Clint and Roger.

So, in your terms, are the Pixies still "important" and "revolutionary?"

note: This is not to tear down the band, but to further the point. Pixies are a great band and I love them, but still, your sentiment towards them seems to hinge on inaccurate perceptions of what they did.

I'm wondering if your estimation of their importance changes with knowing otherwise. Especially since they knew otherwise. No way were an 80s Alternative act in Boston unaware of MoB. They were one of the biggest influences on the scene, even if they only lasted like 5 years and never made legend status.

Now, to get the taste of MoB's dicks off the back of my throat.

**Kane Knight** · 11-08-2011, 11:39 PM

I guess what I'm saying is:

(Sorry, the original video has embedding disabled)

**FakeLaser** · 11-09-2011, 12:14 AM

Really never listened to Mission of Burma so I can't comment. So it's possible that their sound predated the Pixies. I kind of forgot Rites of Spring even existed.

I GUESS Pixies are often credited with the whole "sound" and maybe it's not warranted. They were able to make the sound more poppy or accessible than MOB or Rites of Spring would have. At least as far as Rites of Spring go... not really accessible. Not that the Pixies were ever a "commercial" band by any stretch, but they have way more of a following than MOB or Rites of Spring could ever hope for.

And maybe that's more what I meant by revolutionized as opposed to created the sound, albeit unintentionally. Because really anything is going to be influenced by SOMETHING. Maybe the true greats are the ones who can put it all together and perfect it.

**Kapoutman** · 11-09-2011, 12:15 AM

I'm gonna say something that might get me crucified by Flaser and Buzzkill... but I don't really get Animal Collective at all. I like Panda Bear's solo stuff much better. I've been looking all over youtube to find a song or two of Animal Collective that I would like, and the only songs I found were "Bluish" and "Screens".

I get that what they do is different, but it doesn't click with me. I just want to read what you guys like about the band. Maybe I'm approaching their music all wrong. It sounds like they're going for something "atmospheric" at first, but then they put in really aggressive sounds in their songs. I don't know.

11-09-2011, 12:27 AM

Just be douchey. Douchey = innovative

**DrA** · 11-09-2011, 12:38 AM

Yeah their beats per minute are really subpar.

**FakeLaser** · 11-09-2011, 12:39 AM

It's the perfect marriage between the two sounds.

The psychotic screaming and aggression of Avey Tare
with the atmospheric and soothing Brian-Wilson-esque vibe from Panda Bear

So different, but compliment each other so well. Impossibly beautiful and unbearingly abrasive, all at once.

Really what's great about Animal Collective is their whole aesthetic, the concept behind the band. Just a bunch of ridiculously creative artists experimenting with all different sounds and musical styles. There are so many songs that are clearly Avey and so many that are clearly Panda. And so many that just blend the two styles together so well. And that's how the band operates, as the name suggests - as a collective of musicians experimenting and creating different sounds, visuals and films.

It's really cliched to say about them but they pretty much completely change their sound with each release, while managing to still sound like Animal Collective, regardless of what they try.

They are music by and for the subconscious mind. I dunno. This probably all sounds ridiculously pretentious or whatever. And probably a lot of people are reading this post and are like come on bro. But anyone who is a huge Animal Collective fan understands. It's just HONEST, in a way I can't really describe. As complex as the actual compositions might be, the lyrics generally are simplistic, child-like... but with a child-like awe that one might see the world when they are fully appreciating its beauty.

What can I say really? It's music for our time. They do it better than anyone today. And years from now, people will look back and say holy fuck.

**FakeLaser** · 11-09-2011, 12:44 AM

**Kapoutman** · 11-09-2011, 12:47 AM

Gimme some songs that sound more like "Bluish" and "Screens". Show me what they got.

EDIT: Beat me to it, already posted some suggestions. I'll give them a listen and come back with a report.

**FakeLaser** · 11-09-2011, 12:53 AM

I dunno if any of those really sound like Bluish or Screens, was more trying to post a bunch of different sounds

**FakeLaser** · 11-09-2011, 12:54 AM

LOCH RAVEN OMG

11-05-2011, 04:39 PM	#1
Buzzkill Jamiroquai Bodega Posts: 18,627	Do you believe that bands/musicians need to push the boundaries of music to be considered "great"? I know this is a weird question, but I was thinking about the Black Keys. They're regarded by a lot of people as one of the great bands of the last few years, but I don't think they can qualify considering they just rehashed and refined a sound that had already been well established decades ago. Brothers was a really good album in that it had a lot of awesome songs on it, but it really didn't do anything "new". So in my mind, they're a nice little band with a very accessible and enjoyable sound, but I can't consider them as one of this generation's "great" bands. A lot of this hinges on what your definition of "great" is I guess.

11-05-2011, 05:29 PM	#2
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	If you do something well, i t shouldn't matter if you push boundaries.

11-05-2011, 05:46 PM	#3
El Vaquero de Infierno Sisukas Mies Posts: 15,655	Probably more important that the band develops its sounds and is not afraid to try new things, rather than rehash the same stuff again and again. If the band should push boundaries whilst it does this then great, but if in developing their sound they tread over familiar ground of other bands, but do it better, then that is okay as well.

11-05-2011, 06:30 PM	#5
Requiem Posts: 19,301	Really just comes down to this. I don't think every generation of music needs to be defined by a new sound. Music doesn't necessarily need to progress to the point where it sounds completely different than anything that came before it. It just needs to be done well, and still be it's own thing. I don't view The Black Keys as copycats of anything. They have their own very distinct sound, but they obviously love and respect certain musicians that were a part of their lives growing up.

11-05-2011, 09:09 PM	#6
Buzzkill Jamiroquai Bodega Posts: 18,627	I can't argue this without bringing up Animal Collective and Radiohead, which will automatically nullify my point of view to 99% of TPWW. But I still don't think Black Keys are one of "the greats". They are a great band in the coloquial sense, but not like "one of the greats", in my humble and obviously subjective opinion. FRUITLESS ARGUMENT

11-06-2011, 01:14 PM	#7
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	I wasn't sure, then I thought about what bands I really do consider "GREAT" and the bands that instantly came to mind were: Radiohead Sonic Youth Animal Collective Pink Floyd Joy Division The Beatles These are all musicians who definitely pushed the boundaries of music, and because of it were incredibly influential on music as a whole. Also, they're some of my favorite bands, and at some point in my life, have considered or even still do consider them my "favorite" band. To be a true "great" you have to offer something in the way of innovation. I think that applies to anything. That doesn't mean you can't be a "great" band without re-inventing the wheel. Maybe "great" isn't the word we should be looking at. I mean, there are plenty of bands I'd consider "great" without really changing things, but there are certain bands that are definitely in the upper echelon of music because not only were the great at what they did but they were great for other reasons, namely their innovation and influence. I wouldn't consider The Black Keys to have a distinct sound or anything, they're pretty standard blues rock. But they're good at what they do. I'm not a huge fan of theirs or anything, but they are a good band. Great? No. I dunno. I guess if I look at a band that I really do love... let's say... Deerhunter. I would call them a great band, and at times they may even push the "boundaries of music" though overall I'd say they're pretty much just a psychedelic punk rock band. But I would still consider them "great" because they are great musicians and great at what they do. Though I wouldn't put them in the same category as the bands I listed above.

11-06-2011, 01:17 PM	#8
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	I guess I didn't really make my point there. My point is that you don't have to push boundaries to be just "great" but there's definitely a level above "great" that not even "great" bands can achieve without pushing boundaries, and pushing them successfully. Progression is important, as it is in any art, technology, etc.

11-06-2011, 01:21 PM	#9
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	I also fail to see how The Black Keys push the envelope at all, as Requiem says. Though perhaps it's harder for me to see that as someone who listens to literally 0 mainstream radio. So to me, they sound like a pretty straightforward band. A band I'd have a friend listen to who doesn't really like indie but wants to hear an "indie" band and not be completely weirded out or alienated.

11-06-2011, 02:08 PM	#10
Requiem Posts: 19,301	They are not mainstream radio. They are not even 'standard' anything. Feel like all opinions of them stem from their Brothers album which is the only one to get mainstream attention of any kind, and is not an accurate representation of their body of work. -Six Albums-, and it doesn't seem like anyone who gives their opinion of the band has ever listened to the other work and has just brushed them off. I could be wrong, on that. But, I have noticed a very obvious progression from one album to the next, where nothing sounds the same while still retaining their style. To me, they have roots in blues, but they are so much more. Some experimental styles, some hip-hop beats. More just classic, kick your teeth in, rock and roll that still doesn't sound exactly like anything I've heard before. Again, it has roots. But I've never heard this particular sound before. Their style is pushing the envelope because in the past 10 years, it's a rare thing for a band to use an older sound and do it well enough to garner massive attention. I am not lying when I say that I have -never- heard a song of theirs on the radio. Ever. I'm sure they play them somewhere, but even after Brothers, they are not even that mainstream. I get that Radiohead did something fantastic. They popularized a 'new' sound and tried something before anyone else really caught on. But all music can't be defined by if it 'broke new ground' or not.

11-06-2011, 02:39 PM	#11
Requiem Posts: 19,301	This is all completely subjective anyways. I know at least ten people who think Radiohead are terrible. Legit terrible. I certainly don't agree with them, but those same people also don't give two shits about The Black Keys, and most of them listen to nothing but radio rock and 80's. One LOVES Pink Floyd, another LOVES Led Zeppelin. But if you had them listen to anything else on your list, they would probably just go 'meh' and turn it off. So IDK. Main point is that I wouldn't blame you for not classifying TBK as an all-time great. But one day, when they've paid their dues, and people look back at this generation of music, they are going to get a lot of attention from music enthusiasts for trying something that wasn't guaranteed to sell records at the time. It's not a new sound, but it's new in that it's unexpected in this generation. To me, it sounds like nothing -currently- being played. It sounds similar to old classics sure, but compared to anything else that's out RIGHT NOW, it's in a world of its own. That's why I feel they are pushing the envelope. They didn't make records with the intention of making millions. They made music because of their love of it, and did with 2 people what some bands can't even do with 4. They went to a sound they loved, and gradually refined it over the course of 6 albums (and a couple EPs) From the lyrics, to some of the subtleties in their songs (think this is something only someone who really gets into the band would even care about.. but the subtleties in Dan's playing are incredible, and part of the reason I would consider them amazing). I just can connect with their music, and if something speaks to you on a personal level, then that makes it great. Everything in the way the singer/guitarist constructs his songs just makes me love them. The guitar is as much a part of the emotional impact of the music as the words are.

11-06-2011, 03:13 PM	#12
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	Again, it's subjective, but they're pretty tame when it comes to experimentation in their music, IN MY VIEW. However, to someone who doesn't listen to anything REMOTELY experimental (not saying that's you, Requiem, but the "atypical" person); I can see how they would seem like a "quirky" or "off beat" kind of band. Because compared to the stuff on the radio... they are. But the stuff on the radio represents a relatively small portion of the music that's out there. So in the grand scope of things, are they a "groundbreaking" or even "experimental" type of band? No. Are they a good band? Yes. They play good music, drawing from some obvious influences, and they're clearly talented. But I wouldn't hold them to the same standard as some of the other bands I named. The same could be said for a band like Muse. And I argue about Muse all the time. They're a good band, and clearly very talented. Matt Bellamy is a great guitarist. But where's the innovation? That doesn't take away from them being a good band, but it certainly doesn't put them in the same category as a band like Radiohead, whom they were influenced heavily by. When all is said and done, I hope people look back at this generation and look at bands like The Black Keys and say they were a great band from this "era." Because they're one of the few indie bands that's garnered both mainstream approval and critical acclaim. Which is a feat in and of itself, but again, it's because their sound isn't really THAT FAR off base. It's inoffensive to your average listener. Meaning... it sounds similar to things they've heard before.

11-06-2011, 04:19 PM	#13
Requiem Posts: 19,301	Yeah I am definitely not saying they are the most experimental band I've heard. Far from it, so I agree, but I think it's definitely a part of their style. Just saying I don't think that defines a band's greatness. You keep saying that's not important in defining how good a band is, but then you just keep going back to 'groundbreaking' and 'experimental'. The most defining point, IMO, is the fact that they are a 2 person band (except for Brothers). To me, their greatness is that they are a 'breath of fresh air' in a stale music industry (also my opinion. Haven't been that interested in much that's come out in recent years). I think that's where a lot of their acclaim is coming from, tbh. IMO, the best band to come out of the last decade. Not in a "Wow I've never heard this before, this is mindblowing" sort of way, but in a "Damn, I'm really fucking glad this music exists" way. To the genres you are interested in, you have probably heard a lot of good music in recent years. Stuff that I just wouldn't find interesting. So that's where my love and opinion of 'greatness' comes from with this band, and I think that's probably where a lot of their attention is coming from. I just plain haven't heard much recently that I would consider that good, or that hooked me for more than a month or so. I have listened to this band consistently for over a year and a half now and I'm still not tired of them in the least bit. Think you have a different opinion of what a mainstream sound is too. Because I just don't think they sound even remotely similar to mainstream, and in my experience with trying to turn people on to this band, people seem to not think they are very accessible of a sound. Too 'rough' of a sound for most people or something. Seems more like your criteria for that is that it be 'rock and roll' or something. Dunno, just what I'm getting. You don't think it sounds that different from mainstream rock, but in the past 10 years, I haven't heard anything remotely close to the sound they put out. Just this crazy, overdriven/distorted guitar, howling/soulful vocals with real pain and sick drum beats that HAVE to be good to keep up with the rest of the music. In case you haven't noticed, I am pretty much in love with this band. Over the past however many years, I have distanced myself from practically every musician I grew up listening to because I started realizing how much more there was to music, and how actual talent was far and between, and how everything was so overpolished that it all sounded the same and that the lyrics didn't even really mean anything because it's like they were written to sell, and not because the artist felt they meant anything. So to me, The Black Keys are shockingly fresh in that they don't shy away from doing whatever they want. Have enjoyed this conversation. Thanks. Don't think we're really arguing here. Just have differing opinions on how to classify a sound.

11-06-2011, 04:34 PM	#14
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	lol innovation

11-06-2011, 08:46 PM	#16
Requiem Posts: 19,301	They did it themselves in the studio. Dan Auerbach is credited as doing guitar, bass, vocals, piano, production, engineer. Patrick, the drummer is credited as drums and production. But when they play live they have a full band, which is a first. Before that album, the records were strictly guitar/drum albums and live shows were solely the two of them. Think Attack & Release toyed with some other instruments a little but when they did it live it was just the two of them and they adapted the music a little for that too. Think Patrick has some sort of social anxiety or something too from watching him play in live shows. Dunno. /sortaofftopic Really, they're a band that I wish I could force people to listen to cause I think there's so much subtlety to the music. lol Would light up a blunt and start their discography from the beginning and spend the entire day just listening to their music.

11-06-2011, 09:11 PM	#18
Requiem Posts: 19,301	Link me to some music where 'less is more' that you think I would like. Keeping in mind I am pretty picky tbh. Weird is fine, but weird for the sake of being weird doesn't do it for me.

11-06-2011, 11:08 PM	#20
Requiem Posts: 19,301	Diggin The Kills. Just downloaded a discography of all their studio albums.

11-07-2011, 12:51 AM	#21
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	Yeah kinda thought out of all of those they'd be the one you'd enjoy.

11-07-2011, 12:52 AM	#22
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	Midnight Boom is one of my fav albums of all-time, BTW

11-07-2011, 04:11 PM	#23
DrA Posts: 24,537	There are what, 200-500 billion stars in a galaxy, and just as many galaxies in the universe. I recently read an article where the universe may even be three times larger than initially believed. New research on exoplanets is now saying that one in ~200 stars have Earth like planets. Furthermore, the "cutting edge" theories in theoretical physics are suggesting that this isn't even close to being the only universe in existence. How is this even a question

11-07-2011, 06:34 PM	#24
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	You forgot to mention how Superstring theory can apply to music.

11-07-2011, 06:35 PM	#25
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Is there a parallel universe in which the Black Keys are "innovative?" Is there a parallel universe in which "innovative" isn't used to the point of being completely meaningless?

11-08-2011, 01:05 PM	#26
RoXer History's Greatest, Mr. E Posts: 42,425	Flaser do you like Cults?

11-08-2011, 06:10 PM	#27
The Mask That Entenbrot, The Mask Posts: 56,852	no the pixies and REM have done stuff that probably hadn't really been done before, but i wouldn't say any of it was pushing boundries. doing the simple things well is enough to make a band great.

11-08-2011, 06:14 PM	#28
The Mask That Entenbrot, The Mask Posts: 56,852	fleetwood mac are a great band but i don't think rumours was particularly innovative, it was just lucky that it was a band that had been previously in relationships with each other and had got a bit messy and they made some great tunes out of it.

11-08-2011, 11:39 PM	#31
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	I guess what I'm saying is: (Sorry, the original video has embedding disabled)

11-09-2011, 12:14 AM	#32
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	Really never listened to Mission of Burma so I can't comment. So it's possible that their sound predated the Pixies. I kind of forgot Rites of Spring even existed. I GUESS Pixies are often credited with the whole "sound" and maybe it's not warranted. They were able to make the sound more poppy or accessible than MOB or Rites of Spring would have. At least as far as Rites of Spring go... not really accessible. Not that the Pixies were ever a "commercial" band by any stretch, but they have way more of a following than MOB or Rites of Spring could ever hope for. And maybe that's more what I meant by revolutionized as opposed to created the sound, albeit unintentionally. Because really anything is going to be influenced by SOMETHING. Maybe the true greats are the ones who can put it all together and perfect it.

11-09-2011, 12:15 AM	#33
Kapoutman Hockey Superstar Posts: 11,381	I'm gonna say something that might get me crucified by Flaser and Buzzkill... but I don't really get Animal Collective at all. I like Panda Bear's solo stuff much better. I've been looking all over youtube to find a song or two of Animal Collective that I would like, and the only songs I found were "Bluish" and "Screens". I get that what they do is different, but it doesn't click with me. I just want to read what you guys like about the band. Maybe I'm approaching their music all wrong. It sounds like they're going for something "atmospheric" at first, but then they put in really aggressive sounds in their songs. I don't know.

11-09-2011, 12:27 AM	#34
Gertner Guest Posts: n/a	Just be douchey. Douchey = innovative

11-09-2011, 12:38 AM	#35
DrA Posts: 24,537	Yeah their beats per minute are really subpar.

11-09-2011, 12:39 AM	#36
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731	It's the perfect marriage between the two sounds. The psychotic screaming and aggression of Avey Tare with the atmospheric and soothing Brian-Wilson-esque vibe from Panda Bear So different, but compliment each other so well. Impossibly beautiful and unbearingly abrasive, all at once. Really what's great about Animal Collective is their whole aesthetic, the concept behind the band. Just a bunch of ridiculously creative artists experimenting with all different sounds and musical styles. There are so many songs that are clearly Avey and so many that are clearly Panda. And so many that just blend the two styles together so well. And that's how the band operates, as the name suggests - as a collective of musicians experimenting and creating different sounds, visuals and films. It's really cliched to say about them but they pretty much completely change their sound with each release, while managing to still sound like Animal Collective, regardless of what they try. They are music by and for the subconscious mind. I dunno. This probably all sounds ridiculously pretentious or whatever. And probably a lot of people are reading this post and are like come on bro. But anyone who is a huge Animal Collective fan understands. It's just HONEST, in a way I can't really describe. As complex as the actual compositions might be, the lyrics generally are simplistic, child-like... but with a child-like awe that one might see the world when they are fully appreciating its beauty. What can I say really? It's music for our time. They do it better than anyone today. And years from now, people will look back and say holy fuck.

11-09-2011, 12:44 AM	#37
FakeLaser continental drift Posts: 46,731