Any new music lately?

[the captain]

No problem, I didn't take it that way. And you're right--for yourself and all of us. We only live in our own respective times, which is what makes a lot of the "this is how it should be," or "this is how it is" so silly. The epitome of greatness simply may not be applicable to someone in a different time, place, or situation. It's just irrelevant. So we all just find what we can find, take up what we like most, and it's amazing--but it's important not to get too self-important about such things. A Baby Boomer's greatness is irrelevant to a Gen Xer's, to a Millenial's.

[the captain]

Okay, many of you know I love Of Montreal, so I can't help but post whenever there's something new from them. Here is a new NPR Tiny Desk series recording with two members (bandleader Kevin [on the right] and Bryan "The Late BP Helium" Poole [on the left] with Rebecca Cash singing lead on one of their songs (Feminine Effects) followed by Kevin debuting two new songs, just solo acoustic guitar and voice. It's odd to hear them in that format, assuming they will be pretty heavily arranged before all is said and done. The second, Imbecile Rages, sounds like his Idiot Wind. I think somebody pissed him off...

http://www.ofmontreal.net/2013/03/08/watch-npr-tiny-desk-concert/

[the captain]

Today I came across a review of Lady Lamb the Beekeeper's "Ripley Pine." It's an awful band name but turned out to be a really good project led by singer-songwriter Aly Spaltro. The music is interesting, with long multipart songs, and sometimes really intense, even visceral vocal delivery. My first thoughts were that it was a cross between Heartless Bastards and Fiona Apple. Pitchfork used Okkervil River, Jeff Buckley, and Jack White as comparisons, though I'm not sure whether I'd agree with those.

Definitely something worth a listen. It's on Spotify if you want to check it out.

[the captain]

Lady Lamb the Beekeeper's "Ripley Pine."

Plugging that again. My favorite album of 2013 so far, no question.

I also like Kacey Musgraves.

[hypehat]

You are wrong, that honour belongs to Laura Mvula's Sing To The Moon. Even though I'm just listening to it for the first time now. But sh*t, son, is it good.

[the captain]

You are wrong, that honour belongs to Laura Mvula's Sing To The Moon. Even though I'm just listening to it for the first time now. But sh*t, son, is it good.

Haven't heard it (or even of it), but will check it out.

[the captain]

The new album from The Milk Carton Kids, a very Simon & Garfunkely (Garfunkely is a good, good word!) acoustic duo. I saw a pretty mediocre review at allmusic with the primary charge seemingly lack of originality. Well, that may be true, but the songs are strong regardless of whether they fit firmly into their traditions. I really enjoy it. Beautiful stuff.

It's on spotify.

http://open.spotify.com/track/1aAIFALAyNw5dzXERYW7bf

[the captain]

I'm listening (for the first time) to Harper Simon's new album, Division Street. I'm just a couple tracks in so far, but it is more a full-band, pop-rock sound than his folkier debut album from a few years ago.

Again, some heavy hitters supporting the effort: Benmont Tench, Pete Thomas, Jon Brion, Inara George, Mikael Jorgenson, to name a few.

[guitarfool2002]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15437.0.html

The Allah-Las from Los Angeles.  I think if people here gave them a listen, they'd really dig the sounds and vibe.

Honestly it seems with all the music festivals and over-hyped showcases like the SXSW and whatnot, finding new artists who truly stand out is getting tougher these days. You get more choices, but seriously does SXSW really need that many showcases all at once, happening almost everywhere in Austin where they can fit a stage and a PA? Lost in the shuffle.

[the captain]

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15437.0.html

The Allah-Las from Los Angeles.  I think if people here gave them a listen, they'd really dig the sounds and vibe.

Honestly it seems with all the music festivals and over-hyped showcases like the SXSW and whatnot, finding new artists who truly stand out is getting tougher these days. You get more choices, but seriously does SXSW really need that many showcases all at once, happening almost everywhere in Austin where they can fit a stage and a PA? Lost in the shuffle.

It's good, but not really for me. Usually when something strikes me as so clearly in [x vein], it is a turn-off. It just feels more like acting than music, if that makes sense, or like a cover band that happens to do originals. But I just said I enjoyed the Milk Carton Kids' album about three posts ago, so take that for what it's worth!

I disagree about finding new acts, though. I think it's easier than ever if you want to (and can) put in the time to do it. If you want to pick from what is being marketed to you, that might be a problem (especially if you're a discerning listener who doubts what's being marketed to you). SXSW, the whole idea of that giving you "the next big thing," that's absurd and has been for a long time now. It's a great way to give Austin a ton of tourist money and to give people something to do. There is a ton of great stuff there, obviously (how many bands are there? I mean, obviously some are great.), and a ton of sh*t, and so much of both that it's ridiculous to think anyone could grasp anywhere near a measurable fraction of it.

[guitarfool2002]

It's good, but not really for me. Usually when something strikes me as so clearly in [x vein], it is a turn-off. It just feels more like acting than music, if that makes sense, or like a cover band that happens to do originals. But I just said I enjoyed the Milk Carton Kids' album about three posts ago, so take that for what it's worth!

Then we might as well write off 95% of the neo-soul and retro-r&b singers that have been raved about if not lionized over the past 5-7 years or so, no names necessary but readily available. The majority of especially the male lead vocalists and the backgrounds/production sounds too much like Otis, Pickett, Marvin, etc., right?

Add to the list the multitude of bands here and elsewhere who get raved about because they sound like or emphasize elements of Beach Boys records, or in the case of one notable current "hot" new band, Kinks and Stones records. Or 80's dream pop. Or shoegaze, etc.

If we were to take that route, and eliminate those new records which sound too close to a specific previous act or artist, how many names would we cross off the list in this thread? Or names mentioned on this board in general?

I've yet to pinpoint a single group or record which I can hear being aped in the Allah-Las songs, maybe I'm overlooking it. But I'd think a band which sounds like a whole scene from the mid-60's would maybe carry more music cred than a band which takes a whole bunch of production hooks and sounds from old Kinks or Who records and loads them onto one semi-empty song structure, and folks can't stop raving about it. 

It's all in what you like. But to compare this specific band's music to acting isn't quite fair, especially considering how many other bands in other styles and genres get praised to no end for dead-on mimicking of specific artists' styles and signature sounds. Again, no names necessary.

[the captain]

Then we might as well write off 95% of the neo-soul and retro-r&b singers that have been raved about if not lionized over the past 5-7 years or so, no names necessary but readily available. The majority of especially the male lead vocalists and the backgrounds/production sounds too much like Otis, Pickett, Marvin, etc., right?

Add to the list the multitude of bands here and elsewhere who get raved about because they sound like or emphasize elements of Beach Boys records, or in the case of one notable current "hot" new band, Kinks and Stones records. Or 80's dream pop. Or shoegaze, etc.

If we were to take that route, and eliminate those new records which sound too close to a specific previous act or artist, how many names would we cross off the list in this thread? Or names mentioned on this board in general?

In short, yes. I was trying to be clear that there's nothing wrong with the band and I was only giving my impression--how I feel when I experience a certain thing--but that same observation would hold true for those other scenarios you wrote. And it's not to say I can't enjoy music that fits into those categories, it's just a different kind of enjoyment for me, just as it is a different experience to make that kind of music. (Making music obviously intended to allude to another song, a band, a genre, is different than making music that isn't. Neither better nor worse, but different. And the former seems to me, as I said, more like acting. Which isn't bad, just different.)

Before it goes into this direction, I'll also say obviously no music is without influence, and it wouldn't be appealing to much of anyone if it were. There is an essential combination of familiar and new to make great "new" music. (Something entirely new would just sound foreign and probably not pleasing at all.) So it's not that I don't want to be able to find anything I know or like. There is just some indescribable point that I feel, and it is different than anyone else's I'm sure, where it crosses the line from one to the other. In my mind, there is that point where I think no matter how well this band does what it is doing, that will just be a perfect version of that [thing already done by someone else]. I suppose it must be a combination of my biases, their songs, my experiences relating to their songs, production values and style, etc. Obviously it's subjective. But that doesn't make it real (for me).

Last, regarding names in this thread (as you mentioned), to be honest I don't like most of the new bands a lot of people on this board like. The ones that are so obviously fixated on the past are ones that aren't so much up my alley. And those bands are no doubt just fine, just not for me. (Though I often do mostly reference ones that I think might have a chance of being liked by other people here, so if something strikes me as 60s-ish, I'm more likely to note it here, knowing the taste of the board.)

[guitarfool2002]

Then we might as well write off 95% of the neo-soul and retro-r&b singers that have been raved about if not lionized over the past 5-7 years or so, no names necessary but readily available. The majority of especially the male lead vocalists and the backgrounds/production sounds too much like Otis, Pickett, Marvin, etc., right?

Add to the list the multitude of bands here and elsewhere who get raved about because they sound like or emphasize elements of Beach Boys records, or in the case of one notable current "hot" new band, Kinks and Stones records. Or 80's dream pop. Or shoegaze, etc.

If we were to take that route, and eliminate those new records which sound too close to a specific previous act or artist, how many names would we cross off the list in this thread? Or names mentioned on this board in general?

In short, yes. I was trying to be clear that there's nothing wrong with the band and I was only giving my impression--how I feel when I experience a certain thing--but that same observation would hold true for those other scenarios you wrote. And it's not to say I can't enjoy music that fits into those categories, it's just a different kind of enjoyment for me, just as it is a different experience to make that kind of music. (Making music obviously intended to allude to another song, a band, a genre, is different than making music that isn't. Neither better nor worse, but different. And the former seems to me, as I said, more like acting. Which isn't bad, just different.)

Before it goes into this direction, I'll also say obviously no music is without influence, and it wouldn't be appealing to much of anyone if it were. There is an essential combination of familiar and new to make great "new" music. (Something entirely new would just sound foreign and probably not pleasing at all.) So it's not that I don't want to be able to find anything I know or like. There is just some indescribable point that I feel, and it is different than anyone else's I'm sure, where it crosses the line from one to the other. In my mind, there is that point where I think no matter how well this band does what it is doing, that will just be a perfect version of that [thing already done by someone else]. I suppose it must be a combination of my biases, their songs, my experiences relating to their songs, production values and style, etc. Obviously it's subjective. But that doesn't make it real (for me).

Last, regarding names in this thread (as you mentioned), to be honest I don't like most of the new bands a lot of people on this board like. The ones that are so obviously fixated on the past are ones that aren't so much up my alley. And those bands are no doubt just fine, just not for me. (Though I often do mostly reference ones that I think might have a chance of being liked by other people here, so if something strikes me as 60s-ish, I'm more likely to note it here, knowing the taste of the board.)

Several great points in that reply. Obviously there is no clear-cut reason why someone likes or doesn't like a particular band or song. At the same time, I got the feeling this particular band was getting a lukewarm first impression based on their having a mid-60's Sunset Strip vibe, which if we applied a similar standard across several genres would eliminate a lot of worthwhile music. And that standard would also suggest anything that wears an influence from the past on its sleeve would not, by design, measure up no matter the quality. That struck me as an unfair application of that standard.

I went through that several times, with albums and bands which I now consider among my favorites. When a friend first bought "Definitely Maybe" by Oasis, when it just hit the US, a few of us who admittedly were music snobs at the time started picking it apart. Every track one of us would say "That's The Faces, that's The Jam, that's 'I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing', he nicked that from a Herb Alpert tune", whatever the case. After listening to the songs without that bias and ignoring the references which they were wearing on their sleeves, the album grew on me, and Noel became at that point one of my favorite songwriters, seriously. His songs stood out, for me, and had I held that influence-nicking impression of them, I wouldn't have enjoyed the music itself. Some folks never got past that stage, which if it worked for them, is perfectly fine, but there was some good standalone songwriting on those first Oasis albums.

I keep in mind and remind my students who are interested in songwriting that there are only so many notes on our palette in Western music. We have the same limited choices as Bach and Debussy and Lennon-McCartney, there are simply no "new" notes in the music we hear in the west.

That in itself is a liberating and staggering fact to consider - there are just so many combinations of a limited number of individual notes which we all use to form new music. As such, there is bound to be repetition, and there is nothing at all wrong with putting your original ideas out there no matter how much it resembles something else.

If fans of, say, The Beach Boys hear a song with similar traits and sounds as the BB's, it might trigger the same response as the original BB's song or record, and they'd "like" it for that similarity. I don't mind that, but at the same time if it sounds like the new artist is simply aping the sound and throwing in a lot of production cliches onto a sub-standard shell of a song form, maybe I won't like it as much, and I often do not for that reason.

Yet, I have some favorite songs by Sparklehorse, Matthew Sweet, and Brendan Benson which are clearly nicking the Revolver sound and vibe, but which are solid and enjoyable songs just the same. I enjoy them on a pure song level where others would hear them and chuck them because the impression of mimicking the Beatles is too strong.

What you said about creating something entirely new and as a result foreign has been my main issue with entire segments of the modern jazz and classical genres. Some of the "modern" classical composers are to me so far removed from their listeners, and so steadfast in wanting to create something "new" or "revolutionary" or "challenging" that they lose what makes certain pieces of music so beloved by a wide audience.

As much as I love certain elements of pure, unabashed noise on certain records, when I try to get into atonal, serial, or "free" compositions, I get lost and feel I have nothing to latch on to. Sheets of noise can be thrilling and exciting when applied a certain way - classical composers who are always out to push boundaries scoring atonal series of notes on top of a rhythmic foundation that has no rhythm or pulse, and expecting an audience to sit through an entire movement of screeching strings, bleating brass, and squeaking woodwinds is to me the kind of arrogance that keeps listeners away. Modern jazz suffered the same fate, I feel, where an audience could not walk into a certain jazz show without feeling challenged every minute they are listening, and would feel somehow wrong about getting up to dance or move to the music. What? 

Yet, in context, if you get that in a soundscape within a different musical framework or context, it can reaffirm your faith in the power of pure dissonance! I feel the same about guitarists going on extended feedback excursions...in small doses, it can be incredible. To put an audience through 20 minutes of it with no context is silly and self-indulgent. Noise can be beautiful, noise for noise's sake is absurd.

Again, I have no right or wrong answer as there is none to be found, but we all do like what we like for specific reasons. At the same time some of the reasons can be questioned, the actual visceral reactions cannot.

[the captain]

Right.

If I can speculate--and damnit, I can speculate!--there has to be a kind of natural pace to innovation in music (and all art, and even all culture, really). New ideas introduced within familiar forms can work, familiar ideas in new forms can work, but new ideas in new forms is a tough sell because the ear and the mind only can do so much, especially on what may well be a single listen (especially if the listener doesn't like it the first time around). "Difficult" music can grow on you, but not if you never return to it.

But a successful innovator is more likely to work with subtlety, and gain acceptance. Artist B may be more far out at the same time, and may later be viewed as visionary, but only because Artist A succeeded with the larger audience.

With 12-tone music, then, the issue is obvious: Schoenberg invented a wholly new system and introduced it. Yes, music had strayed from conventional Western tonality, but 12-tone wasn't just atonal (meaning lacking a tonal center), it actively fought against the concept of traditional harmonic progressions, imposing instead tonal equality. The ear wasn't ready for that after something like 750 years of functional harmony, and more time yet of tonality. (In fact, I'd guess tonality was always a part of music, even when it wasn't in a harmonic or functional system.) 12-tone music was academic. I love some Schoenberg, so don't get me wrong, and I appreciate his genius. But that was an exercise, not an enjoyable work of art.

Still, the exact opposite of that is maybe what I was arguing against in my earlier post. When something doesn't seem to be doing anything other than trying to reproduce what is already there, and lacks whatever the "it" of great art is, the new twist that is so exciting, then that leaves me flat no matter how well performed or produced it is.

[hypehat]

It's good, but not really for me. Usually when something strikes me as so clearly in [x vein], it is a turn-off. It just feels more like acting than music, if that makes sense, or like a cover band that happens to do originals. But I just said I enjoyed the Milk Carton Kids' album about three posts ago, so take that for what it's worth!

Then we might as well write off 95% of the neo-soul and retro-r&b singers that have been raved about if not lionized over the past 5-7 years or so, no names necessary but readily available. The majority of especially the male lead vocalists and the backgrounds/production sounds too much like Otis, Pickett, Marvin, etc., right?

I'd argue that if anything, modern R&B is one of the most modern genres out there, unless you class something like the Daptone label 'modern R&B'. I mean, I think R&B is doing an admirable job of not becoming a stale imitation of past forms. To pick the most obvious example, Frank Ocean does not cop exclusively from Marvin, Pickett and Wonder. At the best, he's got that gauzy tone in his production that Wonder has in some of 70's productions, but it's a modern record!

Or, IDK, The Dream or Miguel don't scream Marvin or Bobby Womack or Sly Stone to me, y'know? It's better than being confronted by the music press fawning over Tame Impala, who are supremely sub Beatles to me, or everyone here fawning over The Explorers Club or whatever. The more I listen to R&B, the more I think the 60's & 70's aren't the influence - new and upcoming acts simply don't need that.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

If you're looking for a new album, I'm still waiting for some good feedback on my album....

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15208.0.html

I'm just trying to learn here guys haha...

[Domino]

I recently discovered Phoenix, a really good french band. I highly recommend their albums United and Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix.

[the captain]

I'm not a fan of the band, but the song "Just My Luck" on Dawes' new album, Stories Don't End, is gorgeous. The melody is really interesting and somewhat complex, complete with little chromatic runs, like an Elvis Costello sound.

[the captain]

Purchased but figuratively not yet sold on the new Iron & Wine album. However I really like Janelle Monae's new single Q.U.E.E.N. (featuring Erykah Badu) and Eleanor Friedberger's new single Stare at the Sun.

[Amazing Larry]

One of my favorite albums of the moment coincidentally happens to be very 60s-esque and it's  "We Are the 21st Century Ambassadors of Peace & Magic" by a band called Foxygen. Sort of sounds like Their Satanic Majesties Request / Village Green Preservation Society.

check it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtdWGGpvY1s

I gotta say, even though it's obviously derivative, that's a pretty good song. I'm gonna have to buy their album.

[Rocky Raccoon]

I don't know about new artists but as for new albums, Tegan & Sara had an excellent album this year.  Phoenix and The Strokes also had good ones.  And Atoms for Peace, Thom Yorke from Radiohead's side project is pretty good too but not as pop oriented as the other albums I mentioned.

[Amazing Larry]

With the confirmed Neutral Milk Hotel reunion, I'd say there's a slim chance we'll see a new album, and boy would that be swell.

[the captain]

With the confirmed Neutral Milk Hotel reunion, I'd say there's a slim chance we'll see a new album, and boy would that be swell.

"Slim" chance being the key words. My guess is it's just touring.

Speaking of new music, I got Xenia Rubinos' Magic Trix and like some of it.

[RangeRoverA1]

[deleted]

[the captain]

Listened to the new She & Him on Spotify and was thankful for it ... Spotify, not the new She & Him album. (It let me decide not to spend $13 or so.) Perfectly competent album, and exactly what you might expect from She & Him. I won't leave a party or necessarily turn the radio station if it comes on, but I'm not buying it, either.

Right now I'm listening to Jim James' song "A New Life," which I really like. But I'd like it more if it skipped the first 1:20 or so (which is how the local radio station is playing it, btw). I love that big "once MOOOOOORRRRRRE" at about 3:21 ... very Eric Carmen.