Glyph is worse than some and better than others. He believes that life is just one damned thing after another, that only pop music can save us now, and that mercy is the mark of a great man (but he's just all right). Nothing he writes here should be taken as an indication that he knows anything about anything.

Related Post Roulette

21 Responses

  1. dhex says:

    i don’t love wavves so much but so bored is a great summer track.Report

    • Glyph in reply to dhex says:

      Yeah, that song stands out. For some reason, I always conflate it with this one:

      I only have the one Wavves album (Wavvves) – I like it OK, but it’s pretty same-y.

      Which, to be fair, might be a charge some might level at a lot of these bands; even if they *are* writing varied songs, the muddy production can make it hard for a casual observer to easily differentiate between them.

      But as with shoegaze or garage rock (or, really, anything) one good song is enough – I can assemble it with like others (that may have no geographic or temporal proximity) to make kickass mixes. And as with shoegaze, the textures can be tactile and addictive.

      Have you ever listened to The Microphones’ The Glow Pt. 2? That thing is a paradox, and I couldn’t figure out where to slot it in here. It’s the most detailed lo-fi I’ve ever heard. A headphones lo-fi record.


      • dhex in reply to Glyph says:

        i like that microphones track. i’ll have to check them out.

        part of the difficulty of lo fi is that without sufficient differentiation in playing styles and instrumentation, everything is going to sound pretty samey. i’ve liked some pretty grimey techno in my day, etc, but there’s definitely a serious weakness to the form.

        speaking of lo fi, i really enjoy early will oldham recordings. it sounds like you’re in the room with the guy in the midst of poor decisions.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        Well, the best lo-fi artists (coughpeakGbVcough) definitely switch up styles and even recording styles (different *types* or levels of lo-fi) so as to make the sound work for them, not against them. As much as I like Times New Viking, I sometimes wish they’d switch it up more, because it’s possible to become fatigued with a lot of their albums after the initial rush of a song or three. (Their newest one, Dancer Enquired, tones the noise down quite a bit – it’s the first one they did in a studio. You’d still never mistake it for a Boston record though).

        Speaking of techno, I am digging the new Graze:

        And that Gesaffelstein strikes me as proper dark techno (linked rather than embed, there’s blurred nudity there).

        And it’s not techno, but the new Warpaint has a definite trip-hop feel to some of it:


      • dhex in reply to Glyph says:

        ant-zen was always good for ugly stuff

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        That (distorto sound, not the beat, which is far less hyper) kinda reminds me of Kid 606.Report

  2. krogerfoot says:

    I’m working my way through these tracks and Imma let you finish, but I think you’d like this stuff from out by our neighborhood.

  3. Chris says:

    OK, this may be the first of these posts (with the possible exception of the Girls! one) in which I loved every single track. Damn it, now I’m going to be chasing down some of these bands for the rest of the week.Report

    • Glyph in reply to Chris says:

      Sweet! I thought this one might be a whiff with a lot of people…it can be an acquired taste, and I’ve heard very negative reactions from both people who aren’t down with the concept at all (“WHY would you present your art in such an unflattering light?”), AND people who used to be down with the concept back in the pre-digital days when 4-track analog recording was the most economical choice, but feel that bands striving for that similar sound now, are somehow posing; putting on airs, because now there’s no reason to sound this way; you can get a laptop and make much clearer, “better” sounding recordings, easily and cheaply.

      But of course, “better” is relative. Is there still a point to taking a picture in B&W, when we have color cameras? Or shooting something on grainy film stock, when we have crystal-clear digital video available? Yeah, there is; certain tones and textures can be achieved the old way that just can’t be easily achieved in the new way – or, even if they can be easily achieved in the new way (for all I know, some of these bands are using software to achieve these effects and textures), the texture *itself* is pleasing, or carries certain connotations and associations like the crackle and hiss of old vinyl.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Glyph says:

        I, myself, find myself wondering “HOW IN THE HELL CAN HE KEEP PUTTING TOGETHER POSTS LIKE THIS???”

        I mean, I see a post with this much depth and covering this much ground and figure “okay, he’s blown his wad”, but next week there’s another one. I am flabbergasted.Report

      • Chris in reply to Glyph says:

        Jay, how do you think I feel when I write one of these things:

        “Damn, how the hell am I going to write one thatgood?”

        Glyph, I still can’t stop listening to that whole late-70s gritty New York scene (Patti Smith, Television, Talking Heads), which was sort of a previous take on black and white pictures, and right now I have this, which sorta is a black and white picture, stuck in my head:

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        Oh, consider the wad blown. After this January coup I staged, I gotta get back to work. I’m handing the reins back over to Chris, and looking forward to his.

        Those shoegaze ones just needed doing, and this one felt like the antidote to shoegaze overload.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Glyph says:

        And you too! Jeez!

        I mean, I have dibs on Ash Wednesday (I found a lovely rendition of Ave Maria) but I can’t even imagine writing something like you guys manage to create.

        I mean, haven’t we run out of music?Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        Run out of music? Wouldn’t that be like running out of words? I couldn’t keep up with it all pre-Internet-deluge, when we were just drinking from one figurative firehose.Report

      • Chris in reply to Glyph says:

        It never ceases to amaze me how often I hear new songs, and how often I hear artists I’ve never heard of. And that’s not including Glyph’s endless supply of musical knowledge.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        I’m away from my computer at the moment so I can’t listen, but I have no idea what that Hunger band is, looking forward to it.

        But I must make a shameful confession…I don’t get Patti Smith. Maybe that’s not as shameful as me not really caring about the Beatles, or being lukewarm on Elvis Costello (though My Aim is True is pretty good), but I know I must be missing out somehow.Report

      • Chris in reply to Glyph says:

        Hunger was a 60s garage band that made records that sounded like they recorded their music in their garage.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        That Hunger is definitely of its time (dig that organ!). I always like getting introduced to some weird more-or-less unknown rock corner (Rufus linked that Simply Saucer recently, which I NEVER would have heard of).

        Here’s one a friend introduced me to years and years ago. I guess it WAS a moderate hit in 1970, but it was new to me: