Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Discussion of anything not related to audio or music production
Theo Void
Posts: 1021
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by Theo Void » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:50 pm

ya, Kurt wanted Albini because he wanted to alienate his audience and show people that they were not a Pop band. Then Albini came thru, did his thing and then they turned around and brought someone else in to re-master. They ended up going w/ the radio-friendly, pop version produced by Scott Lit (I think.) Because, ultimately, they wanted to sell more records more than they wanted to prove they were "punk." Kurt also agreed to change the dead baby cover art and the song title to "Waif Me" so Wal-Mart would carry the record. I love Nirvana. Everyone knows Kurt was (supposedly) appauled by the type of people who were listening to his music. Nirvana really can't be blamed for selling out because it kinda happened w/o them even trying. The stars were just perfectly aligned at a time when people were absolutely sick of fake ass plastic bull-shit hair-metal. Then we all know what happened when "Grunge" became marketable. We got stuck w/ Bush and 3,000 other bands who tried(and failed.) to be Kurt Cobain. I'm kinda happy he went out the way he did. He gets to be eternally young and relevant. God, could u imagine Kurt on Celebrity rehab or some shit. He didn't live long enough to become a parody of himself. Thank God!

But I will defend Pop music if I like it because like I said before most of the people who talk shit only do so to appear cool and elite and I find that pathetic. Herd Mentality annoys the shit out of me and it's funny because people like that think they're so original and individualistic and non-conformist when in reality they're just conforming to a different herd.
:mrgreen:

stringtapper
Posts: 6280
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by stringtapper » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:51 pm

Kurt Cobain wrote:We’re just musically and rhythmically retarded.
I agree.
Unsound Designer

robfoster
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:51 pm

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by robfoster » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:33 pm

Ive just spent the weekend at a "festival" every time i went into the "dance" tent it was just pure wobble, which i have to say ruined the moment for me even though it was rammed with (younger than me) people that appeared to be enjoying themselves, eventually i found that the herbal high stall was playing some decent tunes so i went there. I just don't get Dubstep, but then again i am really old....
Lion 10.7.2
Mac Mini 2.4Ghz
Ableton live 8.26
Logic pro 9.15

My Website

Machinesworking
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:31 pm

Sunsetter wrote:ya, Kurt wanted Albini because he wanted to alienate his audience and show people that they were not a Pop band.
Who let you in on this nugget of information? or is this just something you feel is the truth? We sometimes treat our hunches as fact, all I'm saying.
For instance why isn't it possible that Kurt thought Albini was a good producer and wanted to elevate a fellow indie rocker? To me that seems the likely scenario. That a major had problems with it isn't surprising, goes back to them not wanting to take chances.
Sunsetter wrote: But I will defend Pop music if I like it because like I said before most of the people who talk shit only do so to appear cool and elite and I find that pathetic. Herd Mentality annoys the shit out of me and it's funny because people like that think they're so original and individualistic and non-conformist when in reality they're just conforming to a different herd.
:mrgreen:
Why read so much into other peoples motives? Isn't it easier to admit that you like pop music than to try to defend bands that obviously are pop? Case in point, Milli Vanilli, some kid I worked with thought they were really good and defended them as artists, when it was found out that they weren't even singing on their own songs let alone being part of the writing process, he said, "Well whoever was singing those songs did a good job!? I almost died laughing. Had he said that he didn't care if it was formulaic pop, it sounded good to him from the beginning he wouldn't have come across as such an ass.
Personally I love or hate bands not because I want to seem cool, but because I actually like or hate their music, plus I assume that it's my right to have my own taste, and not be expected to like what you like. I couldn't give a fuck whether you hate some band I like, especially if it's just pop music we're talking about.

So Solid Poo
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:56 pm

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by So Solid Poo » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:07 pm

'DA FUCK U NIGGAZ TALKIN 'BOUT ?
SHEEEEEEEEEEEIT

docprosper
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:20 am
Location: Fredericksburg, VA

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by docprosper » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:41 pm

Hey douchbag your caps lock is on. Just sayin'.
Funk N. Furter wrote:Post properly.
Ableton Live Suite | M4L | Powerbook | Launchpad | APC40 | Faderfox | 2x1200 | ...
---> http://soundcloud.com/kilcraft

Theo Void
Posts: 1021
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by Theo Void » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:53 pm

Machinesworking wrote:
Sunsetter wrote:ya, Kurt wanted Albini because he wanted to alienate his audience and show people that they were not a Pop band.
Who let you in on this nugget of information? or is this just something you feel is the truth? We sometimes treat our hunches as fact, all I'm saying.
For instance why isn't it possible that Kurt thought Albini was a good producer and wanted to elevate a fellow indie rocker? To me that seems the likely scenario. That a major had problems with it isn't surprising, goes back to them not wanting to take chances.
Sunsetter wrote: But I will defend Pop music if I like it because like I said before most of the people who talk shit only do so to appear cool and elite and I find that pathetic. Herd Mentality annoys the shit out of me and it's funny because people like that think they're so original and individualistic and non-conformist when in reality they're just conforming to a different herd.
:mrgreen:
Why read so much into other peoples motives? Isn't it easier to admit that you like pop music than to try to defend bands that obviously are pop? Case in point, Milli Vanilli, some kid I worked with thought they were really good and defended them as artists, when it was found out that they weren't even singing on their own songs let alone being part of the writing process, he said, "Well whoever was singing those songs did a good job!? I almost died laughing. Had he said that he didn't care if it was formulaic pop, it sounded good to him from the beginning he wouldn't have come across as such an ass.
Personally I love or hate bands not because I want to seem cool, but because I actually like or hate their music, plus I assume that it's my right to have my own taste, and not be expected to like what you like. I couldn't give a fuck whether you hate some band I like, especially if it's just pop music we're talking about.
I got that nugget of information from a Kurt Cobain interview. Right before In-Utero came out he literally said, w/ a smirk "I think we're gonna lose a lot of fans w/ this one." because from other interviews and song lyrics it's known that he hated homophobic, hill-billy, macho type people. He wanted to alienate those people. Or if you read the liner notes to Incesticide this is also clearly stated. So it isn't something I "feel" is truth or a hunch, I'm just stating shit that was said by the dude himself. I have no reason to spout off made up bull-shit about the fucking grunge era, I just happen to follow this stuff. For some reason it interests me.
Also, I'know the Major Label had everything to do w/ pressuring them to re-master because it's also a known fact that Steve Albini is known for his Raw recording style. He records in one take and there's almost zero post production involved. He keeps it seriously old school. He refuses to be credited as a producer instead he insists on being credited as, "recorded by:." He also refuses to be paid royalties from sales instead he charges a flat fee. Anyway, Nirvana knew his style and chose him specifically for that reason. It had nothing to do w/ them "trying to elevate a fellow indie rocker." By the time In-Utero was being made Steve Albini was already huge in his respective scene having "recorded" Pixies albums and from his own bands. He hardly needed to be "elevated" by anyone.

And I read into other peoples motives because I'm a human being and I interact w/ people everyday so it's hard to not think about why people are the way they are. I don't drift through life w/o a single thought. I tend to think quite often.

I AM admitting that I like Pop music. That's my whole point! I don't give a fuck who likes what or why. I don't care about the scene or how popular or how "Punk Rock" they are. If I enjoy their music then I will go on enjoying it no matter what. I was talking about how I see others acting in this regard. I'm not defending anything because I don't have to. If I like a sound then I like a sound. That simple. I don't care if 30 million people like it or if no ones ever heard of it. Who's to say that the poppiest artists on earth don't genuinely feel that what they are making is pure art.

rcpunker
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by rcpunker » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:45 am

When we were signed to a major label we got flack from the underground. But, when we went back and started our own label, the old followers came back and we are bigger and stronger than ever because of them. So we call that "selling out,walking out,now nothin' but shout outs".

Theo Void
Posts: 1021
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by Theo Void » Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:47 am

rcpunker wrote:When we were signed to a major label we got flack from the underground. But, when we went back and started our own label, the old followers came back and we are bigger and stronger than ever because of them. So we call that "selling out,walking out,now nothin' but shout outs".
word :D

Machinesworking
Posts: 11140
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Which is worse: Dub step or Electro?

Post by Machinesworking » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:24 am

Sunsetter wrote:ya, Kurt wanted Albini because he wanted to alienate his audience and show people that they were not a Pop band.
I got that nugget of information from a Kurt Cobain interview. Right before In-Utero came out he literally said, w/ a smirk "I think we're gonna lose a lot of fans w/ this one." because from other interviews and song lyrics it's known that he hated homophobic, hill-billy, macho type people. He wanted to alienate those people. Or if you read the liner notes to Incesticide this is also clearly stated. So it isn't something I "feel" is truth or a hunch, I'm just stating shit that was said by the dude himself. I have no reason to spout off made up bull-shit about the fucking grunge era, I just happen to follow this stuff. For some reason it interests me.
Also, I'know the Major Label had everything to do w/ pressuring them to re-master because it's also a known fact that Steve Albini is known for his Raw recording style. He records in one take and there's almost zero post production involved. He keeps it seriously old school. He refuses to be credited as a producer instead he insists on being credited as, "recorded by:." He also refuses to be paid royalties from sales instead he charges a flat fee. Anyway, Nirvana knew his style and chose him specifically for that reason. It had nothing to do w/ them "trying to elevate a fellow indie rocker." By the time In-Utero was being made Steve Albini was already huge in his respective scene having "recorded" Pixies albums and from his own bands. He hardly needed to be "elevated" by anyone.
OK how is someone choosing to do something the way they want to do it, (use Albini in this case) and acknowledging that some people will not like this direction, how is that the same as "wanting to alienate his audience etc?" You read the motivation to do something not the popular way as a deliberate attempt to alienate your audience, when it might just be simply a direction you want to go in and a nod to the fact that some people won't like it.
Plenty of bands change their sound and style yet don't get tagged as doing it to get cred etc. Another reason why signing to a major is so annoying for some bands, if he made another Nevermind everyone would have called him a sell out, instead In Utero is somewhere between Nevermind and Bleach. As a guitar player, Albini is a great guitar producer, they sound raw and alive under him, his drums sound like ass though, Butch Vig is a far better drum producer, and his guitars aren't as intense. Makes perfect sense since they both play the instruments they do well producing.
And I read into other peoples motives because I'm a human being and I interact w/ people everyday so it's hard to not think about why people are the way they are. I don't drift through life w/o a single thought. I tend to think quite often.

I AM admitting that I like Pop music. That's my whole point! I don't give a fuck who likes what or why. I don't care about the scene or how popular or how "Punk Rock" they are. If I enjoy their music then I will go on enjoying it no matter what. I was talking about how I see others acting in this regard. I'm not defending anything because I don't have to. If I like a sound then I like a sound. That simple. I don't care if 30 million people like it or if no ones ever heard of it. Who's to say that the poppiest artists on earth don't genuinely feel that what they are making is pure art.
Well you tend to frame your thoughts with this from this perspective that underground artists are all either failed famous musicians or that they're deliberately making bad music to pander to hipsters. I'm not saying there aren't groups that do that, just that the framework for motives is much larger than black and white. Sometimes people just like what they like. I do know that most people don't like the kind of music I do, and it's more like a reminder of how odd my music taste must be that only a few people love the same shit I do, definitely not hip, and not cool in any way. Just to let you know though I do get what you actually mean, when you meet someone who likes some obscure band, and you realize they're doing it as a fashion accessory. :roll:

Post Reply