garageband.com contest: alternative or punk???

rats

New member
I'm not sure if theis is the proper locale for this thread, but screw it, let anarchy rule. My band's music is hard to describe. We've pinned it to psychedelic indie punk, but it crosses the border lines a lot. The problem at hand is that we are in the garageband.com contest (which to me is really just a good way to get some reviews and feedback on our music from people who will really have no reason to be anything but unbiased in their critique) and I can't pin down the category to slot our music in. I initially put PTSG and electro in alternative, but now I'm second guessing my decision(probably doesn't matter too much).Although I consider it basically post rock, it can be considered punk, but not in the classic way. It can also be considered alternative in the indie way. There is also an element of electronic influence, although with the new band most of that is element has faded. Trying not to be too long winded, I'm putting out a call to the good peep here who would be so kind as to lend an ear to a few of our songs at MP3.com, namely "the Psycho Tripper Sex Gang", "Electro!", "Jonathn(Dip Off My Chip)", and "If I Could Be Your Boogeyman". Please believe me when I say this is not a ploy to boost my download points, I really could care less about that crap. These are the same songs I posted in the MP3 clinic forum last month, so if you listened to them then you can save yourself a click.
Thanks!!!! And yes, I am self obsessed.

-rats
 
click

Oh yeah, the you can click the little red house down there to access those songs.
 
Here's what I can offer

Without having listened to your songs, I would say it makes no difference what category they are in. Agonizing over whether or not a song is "punk" or "alternative" is a fruitless labor.
If the songs are good they will rise to the top.
Musical boundaries suck anyway. They are just a ploy by the man to pigeon-hole artists into neat little packages so they can profit from us.
Let anarchy rule!!!!
AaronCheney
http://www.aaroncheney.com
 
I have the same problem with not knowing where our style fits, and I have also givin up worrying about it. I do however believe on mp3.com and garageband.com it makes a big difference to how wel you do, what I am trying to say is that I think its a good idea to try and get in the right category on mp3.com and garageband.com. Myself would just review metal, punk and alternative on garageband.com so I dont review anything else. I mean would you want a boyband fan to review your punky type music, now that wont work.

Rats, I have listened to your stuff before and I could not say in which cateogry it falls, I do think Alternative is the best place for it though. If its bad advice, just bring pestelence down on me.

:p Good luck in the race for the $250 000
 
Every time I read a review of a local band around here, it always says that their music is difficult to categorize. I say this may be true for the inarticulate rock journalist, but my point is that it has really become as much a cliche to be difficult to catagorize as it is to fall comfortably within a category or genre.

I don't think we should be mistaken about who's doing the pidgeon-holing. Moreso than "the man," I think bands are to blame for their inability to follow a vision that takes them outside of the facile and familiar. When bands are able to do so, we certainly want to have a name for it so we can tell all of our friends about it. And it builds. Then we trace back to bands whose influence we hear in a new band when we put them in a genre. Since it is the 21st century, its necessary to use a certain amount of hyphens and slashes.

Lets look at an example: Rats' band fits somewhere in the space between post-rock of Sonic Youth, the new wave elements of Devo, and the deconstructionist vibe of Soul Coughing. A simple name for this is
post-indiewave-decon/noise-artrock.

For promotional purposes, this can be abbreviated to alternative.

just having a little fun. I actually know people who have conversations in this language:)
 
Well said Lazyboy , I agree

Rats, after long hard thought and consideration of what has been said I have decided to classify what your band does as the artform previously known as MUSIC. (Now, obviously, it would be discribed as: "post-indiewave-decon/noise-artrock", or any other cool string you can conjour up. :rolleyes: )
 
what's a Thrig?

That is the usual respose we get when we tell anyone what our band name is, so we've decided to appropriately name our next CD "What's a Thrig?". Thank you for your responses and feedback.
Lazyboy I think you have a very good point about the benefits of a label for your sound, and that's the major motivation for my quest for a category. I've always wanted our music to be versatile and interesting, and I've always wanted to stay away from falling into traps like those other bands have fallen into that require each song to sound like the next. When I started playing music it was straight out hardcore punk, but got bored with it. So I found more room to move in a kind of goth/indie/industrial thing like ministry meets Sonic Youth meets Bauhaus, but that broke up. For years after that I diddled with noise bands, and in 1999 decided to start a band that could pull it all together. It seems to me that some of the greatest artists, the ones that make a difference anyway, played music that was ever-changing and growing, taking on new faces. Look at the Beatles for example! Some of the bands I personally feel made a difference (some would disagree) would be Pink Floyd, Sonic Youth , David Bowie, Beck, the Pixies, and others. They all had their own sound but they made their own rules, and that made them great. They all forced the industry to play with them, and not to be played with by the industry. That's my personal goal: To not sound wishy-washy but to be diverse, and with a sound unique and marketable. If you've listened to those songs, what can you say about that?
 
I've always said that nobody can be completely original. Those who seem to be truly original are those who draw from broader influences. Personal favorites include Frank Black, Elvis Costello and Joe Strummer.
Jeff
 
Yeah but for one Elvis Costello's studff all sounds the same to me. Frank Balck I can agree with you on. I don't know much of Joe Strummer's stuff (is he in B.A.D.?). My problem is once all the diverse influences have been taken into account and drawn on, pulling it together in a neat package instead of having a big grotesque blob of music. Then again maybe grotesque is good...
 
In a way, I'm not sure that pulling it all together is something that can happen on a cognitive level. In other words, I don't think that you can plan the collision of influences. Well, you can to a degree, but for the most part it just seems to happen. The punk in you will spill over when you're doing bossa nova, you know?

Since I'm the -/ guy, try my example. I was talking to my sister's boyfriend who is also in a band. I told him that I'm looking to do something like this:

psychedelic/garage-noisefolk

Well, what the hell's that? Depends on the song. And it damn well better mean something different for each.
 
I'm way into psychedelic garage noise folk!!! Sounds like Neutral Milk Hotel, or the Beta Band. Want to collaborate ona side project!?
 
Rats: I couldn't resist putting my two cents in on this thread. I listened to your stuff when you posted on the MP3 mixing clinic. Although Lazyboy's description of your music is very accurate on the influences heard in your stuff, I came away with the impression that it was "punk pop". What I thought was great about it was the fact that the band succeeded in "pulling it all together" in a way that could take punk very mainstream. In other words: commercially successful (=$$$). I don't know if thats where you want your music to go though. There have been people who achieve commercial success with their music and suddenly have an identity crisis cause they arrive at a place that is exactly opposite of what inspired their stuff in the first place. From what limited knowledge I have of the local music scene here in Chicago, I believe there is a very lucrative market for your music.
 
Hey macdaddy I like the way you think! Rats loves money!!! I've always wanted some!!! I've got to admit the term "Punk Pop" sort of makes me cringe, but I think you mean it in a good way. I associate "pop" with lack of substance, but that's just my thing. I suppose Pop can also mean catchy, toe tappin fun sounds, and believe me I'm all about that! I like to write a song that will stick to your ribs, and mybe give you a little tickle. I think of it like a Kids Toy in horror movie...like Chucky or that clown in Poltergeist. It looks all warm and innocent and inviting, but watch out because it'll bite your fucking face off the first chance it gets! Ever see Gremlins?
 
That's funny that you mention those two bands Rats. From fairly limited exposure, I don't really care for either to be honest. With all due respect to them, my vision is of something more transcendent (of course it is!). I guess I'm still into the VU thing of taking yourself way too seriously. It's not that I don't find those bands interesting, its just that I don't feel I could establish the the all-important emotional connection to them.

My last band was very much a downtempo introspective type. Even when we tried to be explosive, it was a very measured kind of explosiveness. Lots of people told us we sounded a lot like Hum. I still want to have elements of that, but I can't get excited about that alone anymore. I want to rock too.
 
Rats: Glad you didn't take offense to "punk pop". "Pop" is just an abbreviated form of popular. I believe the term "popular music" started a long time ago to distinguish it from "classical", "chamber music", etc. Nowadays it has a bad reputation. Anyway, when I hear "pop" I think "popular" and that is how I was using it to describe your sound.
 
Rats- If you think all Elvis Costello sounds the same, you probably haven't heard much of it.
And Joe Strummer was in this little band called the Clash before BAD or the Mescalleros.
Lastly, if you call yourself punk, you'll be one of the millions of misled who don't have a clue what punk is. Stick with alt. it's generic enough to encompass everything. Oh yeah, and check out the new Propaghandi-"Today's Empires, Tomorrow's Ashes" if you want to hear some real punk.
Jeff
 
dear jvasey:

Hey there twisted sister it's common knowledge Joe strummer basically was the Clash, so don't come around here barking like big shot. I'll bet I could teach you a thing or two about punk rock if you're talking like that it shows how little you know. Real punk is going against the grain, being yourself not afraid to offend. To me real punk was Iggy and the Stooges, the Velvet Underground, yes the Clash, the Ramones, and then the next wave of "real punk" had to go against the grain and out came the Meat Puppets, the Butthole Surfers, Sonic Youth, the beastie boys and others. The point is, you can't keep doing the same old thing and call yourself punk. That goes against what punk was all about in the beginning. It was teenage angst, rebellion, and new energy. Now if you're playing the same 3 chord Ramones or Black Flag riffs you're not punk, you just suck. And Elvis Costello sucks as well by the way.
 
Rats- Your the guy that said you had heard much of Joe Strummers stuff. You also were concerned with how to get disparate influences into a neat package. That's not necessary. You don't try to show all sides of your personality at the same time, and your music should be the same way. That's where the guys I was talking about come in. The Pixies could be playing bubblegum one minute, and screaming there asses off the next. That's the beauty of a broad appreciation.

Also, who said anything about doing the same old thing. My first concert was the Clash, and the reason I still listen to them is because they were the first to break punk out of the 3 chord ghetto.
Jeff
PS-Still give the Propaghandi album a try. I promise it won't sound like Elvis Costello, (who I still like anyways).
 
What is Propaghandi anyway? You never really elaborated on that. An artist, a title, a compilation... I'm always willing to hear something new.

As for the Strummer thing, let's not go there. I know the Clash, have owned most all of their albums at one time or another, but don't care for the post-Clash projects. I know some BAD, but found most of it insubstantial.

The Pixies point makes sense. Actually it makes a lot of senese the more I think about it. So then how would you classify the Pixies?
Fuck it I've enough of this classification shit. Like Drstawl said, we play Rock and Roll, what more do you want? This was all about that stupid garageband.com contest.

If anyone cares we went with the ambiguous Alternative category (alternative to what I don't know). The End.
 
Back
Top