1. avatar fastfude
    Been thinking (twice in one week? christ!) about the bands page. Would it help to introduce music categories to allow visitors to quickly/easily find stuff they'd potentially like?
    I know, pigeon-holing bands is a terrible thing, but it's a bit of an onslaught of choice at the moment, and it seems many bands are completely incapable of writing a biog that actually describes their sound (duh!) The end result being you're all lost in the crowd.
    Howabout the idea of picking up to (say about) three adjectives/genres from a list (of many) that you think best fit your band, so it's not just a problem of picking one loose fitting genre. That way people could find their musical niches quicker and maybe find your band waiting for them?
  2. avatar jimron
    My first post!
    who is gonna be doing categorising, and what if you havent heard them before?
  3. avatar Suki Monster
    Aye but That would be a bad idea as none of us musicians want to be pigeon holed (man) as it messes up the whole karma (man) and makes our music feel trapped in side a big bubble (man) or summit.
  4. avatar Cormcolash
    Na, I just don't really think it would make much of a difference.
  5. avatar jenl
    Nah, I think it's a bad idea.
    One person's indie is another person's Coldplay.
    Plus, it'll just get me started on sloppy journalism and associations : I recently read a review that compared Olympic Lifts to the Beastie Boys!

    Hahahahahahaaaaaa ..... etc etc.
  6. avatar feline1
    Olympic Lifts *ARE* the beastie boys, crossed with Ali G ;-)

    Roger, ewe can't go categorising,
    it'll only end in tears and is
    deeply ideologically unsound.
  7. avatar zebulon
    It's an odd one me old chums, it really is.
    Sometimes the comparisons other people make between my various acts and established bands can be enlightening, honouring even, but other times, they can be puerile, sterile, misguided: degrading even.

    I also have observed that comparisons that people within the bands have made can seem obtuse or even completely opaque.

    It's very interesting when someone compares one band to another which none of the bandmembers have even heard of, let alone been influenced by, but when they actually do get to hear them, the similarities are stunning.

    It's all a moot point really.

    An interesting system I would try if I ruled this microcosm, would be twofold:
    - four bands & four genres with whom the band compare themselves.
    -
    four bands & four genres with whom fans of the band would compare them.

    Whereas this still fulfills SukiMonster's apocalyptic vision (not good), it provides a more open, discursive view, and a little wider insight into both the causes and the effects of the band in question.

    For example:
    the Cheese Junkies
    Band said:
    Miles Davis, Roni Size, Morphine, Faith No More....World, Reggae, Funk.
    Audience said:
    Massive Attack, Black Sabbath, Frank Zappa, Red Hot Chili Peppers....Funk, Jazz, Rock.
  8. avatar fastfude
    That's an interesting spin on the idea Zeb.

    In answer to jimron, the idea would be that the band picked the categories themselves, not me or anyone else.

    As it happens, I do agree that shelving genres like this can be a terrible, evil thing, but the fundamental reason for asking is that the huge list of bands on the bands page is just too.... huge. Who *actually* reads it all? Not me! It needs some kind of filtering/sorting so that you're not faced with an onslaught of information all at once.

    What's everyone think of Zeb's suggestion? A potential middle-ground?
  9. avatar fhoadam
    why not, we dont have to do it do we, should the idea go through. i probably wont but give the option sure
  10. avatar fastfude
    dunno. wouldn't leaving your band uncategorized mean you'd end up in "other" or summat?
  11. avatar feline1
    yES, but putting my Technical Author hat on -
    the "who actually reads it" question is fundamental -
    and I think the answer is that it will be browsed at length
    by people who are curious to know more about the
    NornIrondMusicScene.
    These people could be folk who've been on the boards
    for ages, and want to spend an hour finding out more
    about who they've been talking to -
    or they could be total newcomers.
    They might even be A&R people.

    Ewe seem to want to have an "at a glance" page,
    with a pie-chart to showing the %age of mettle bands
    versus analogue pop idioligists.
    I think this would be more appropriate to a board room
    presentation than the sort of long-term browsers the
    page is intended for.
  12. avatar fastfude
    Basically, I'm worried that the current presentation format is just too daunting
    to readers unless they specifically have a need for reading it. I'd imagine many, if not most, hit the "discussion" button before it even loads (or just bookmark the ezBoard).

    Having A&R men read it is of course a good thing, but I'm sure it could be accessible and potentially interesting to more people than that? What about people who are only vaguely interested in the scene (via a friend's band perhaps)? There may be other bands there that they'd like, but I doubt they'd read (and listen to) all those entries to find out. You'd have to read all 120+ profiles to find 2 or 3 bands that you might like (and keep checking back every few days to see what's changed), which seems too awkward to me.

    The categories suggestion, while unanimously frowned upon (myself included) is just one way of making it more accessible to an audience. Surely there are others?
  13. avatar jenl
    "can be puerile, sterile, misguided: degrading even."

    Don't start me on the Beatie Boys comparison Feline.
    Such comparisons disgust me, because the truth is Olympic Lifts sound bugger all like the Beastie Boys.
    If you stretch comparisons you could argue that they sound like Mouse on Mars ('cause let's not forget that Mark, Jonathan AND Brian were in Tunic, and sure, didn't they sound like Stereolab!!!!!!
    And sure aren't Stereolab on of Mars on Mars' greatest fans!*).
    My point, you can compare bands till the cows come home, it doesn't necessarily mean it applies, or is true.

    I also think such comparisons come from a lack of an understanding of what the band are trying to do, and/or a blatant misreprepresentation of music.
    Let's see : Olympic Lifts (white boys making hip-hoppish music and rapping over tunes) - the Beastie Boys (white boys making hip-hoppish music and rapping over tunes) .... Ah, they must be one and the same!?

    I find such comparisons (see above quote).
    Anyone who knows me will know I'm not the greatest OL fan, but I'm still able to think rationally.

    * (P.S.
    I used this example 'cause I just happen to be listening to Mouse on Mars right now.
    See how easy it is to make ill-informed comparisons.)

    I think if people genuinely want to find out about local bands they'll look to the bands page.
    If they want to hear/find out more about such bands, they'll visit their sites or see them live and categorise their music for themselves.
    Either way it doesn't matter if it happens or not ... if it's best for the site/bands so be it.
  14. avatar fastfude
  15. avatar jenl
    Oooh, jeez, golly, gosh, the mettlers are in the lead ... Feline!?!?
    where aarrreeeeee you? (you? .... you? .... you?).
    That's meant to be an echo ya know!
  16. avatar Cormcolash
    We've been compared with a million bands who we don't even sound like, for some reason. Its a good thing I don't care, I like hearing funny comparisons.
  17. avatar feline1
    How ahine!

    Well, to me, The Olympic Lifts are similar to the Beastie Boys, because,
    they're both White boys playfully, er, playing, with "Black", Hip-hop(-ish) Music.

    That is the "cultural source", which is more important that precise audio formalisms.
    However, to me, the Olympic Lifts, wich their vocal accents, have less "credibility"
    or "authenticity" (or is it more integrity and less cultural appropriation and
    pastiche? ;-)
    and thus get an Ali G label too.

    Tunic sound absolutely nothing like Stereolab!?! I mean what!?!?
    Tunic were a "quirky indie lo-fi band", Stereolab are a marxist agitprop
    schlockhorror neu!wave electrikdrone jazz odyssey cobran und phases groop.

    And the Olypmic Lifts sound absolutely nothing like Mouse on Mars.
  18. avatar jenl
    Yes, but Feline, you’ve missed the point I was trying to make, and reworded my rant at the same time!
    :-O

    “Well, to me, The Olympic Lifts are similar to the Beastie Boys, because,
    they're both White boys playfully, er, playing, with "Black", Hip-hop(-ish) Music.

    That is the "cultural source", which is more important that precise audio formalisms.
    However, to me, the Olympic Lifts, wich their vocal accents, have less "credibility"
    or "authenticity" (or is it more integrity and less cultural appropriation and
    pastiche? ;-) and thus get an Ali G label too.”

    This is the point I was trying to make.
    You can listen to a band, and make comparisons.
    It doesn’t necessarily mean that such comparisons are justified, valid or fitting.
    I said that, yes, you can compare Olympic Lifts to the Beastie Boys using the ‘characteristics’ you have stated.
    But as I tried to say, since I am closer to ‘da boys’ I see what they are trying to do, and so I think such comparisons are sloppy.
    Would you not agree that it is the responsibility of journalists (be they music, news etc) to try and get to the root of each story, to try and understand what is happening?
    Even if such journalists don’t get the ideas EXACTLY I believe that a review/journalist will still move beyond the typical, and let me say it again, sloppy comparisons.

    I understand what you are saying about the accents.
    I think though that the personal attachments and hindrances that we have with the accent is simply because it IS and sounds so common to us.
    Hip-hop has been appropriated in so many different countries, languages and cultures, all of which is perfectly valid.
    And sure, there is an Ali G aspect to the music, but that is just the fun side of OL’s music and personalities manifesting themselves in such a way.
    There is a serious side.
    Also, as terribly PC as it sounds hip-hop is no longer purely Black.
    How is music expected to evolve, and experimentation allowed to continue if we apply such boundaries?

    “Tunic sound absolutely nothing like Stereolab!?! I mean what!?!?
    Tunic were a "quirky indie lo-fi band", Stereolab are a marxist agitprop
    schlockhorror neu!wave electrikdrone jazz odyssey cobran und phases groop.
    And the Olypmic Lifts sound absolutely nothing like Mouse on Mars.”

    But I was not trying to imply that Tunic sounded like Stereolab, not did I try to say that Olympic Lifts sound like Mouse on Mars.
    I was referring to the numerous times that Tunic were compared to Stereolab, simply because of one or two Stereolab support slots.
    Do you see how this association/comparative technique is synonymous with the Olympic Lifts/Beastie Boys reference, and how totally ludicrous it is?!
    My point is still that if we apply these germane ‘rules’ to Olympic Lifts then one could argue that OL sound like Mouse on Mars!

    So, why should music/bands/artists have their credibility, ideas etc reduced by such shabby journalistic comparisons?
    Yes, journalists are there to offer opinions and give clues to the sound, but does it have to be so unintelligent and misinformed?
  19. avatar feline1
    Oh right -
    I should have typed

    "Well, to me, The Olympic Lifts **are** similar to the Beastie Boys, "

    - ie, I *knew* I was consciously re-iterating what ewe'd said, and the difference
    was that I was saying I DO consider those things sufficient cause to make a valid comparison.
    If there's some thing deeper in the Olympic Lift's 'cultural agenda', beyond being White boyz playfully (er) playing with the Black "Hip Hop" style with a large dollop of fun and humour, then do let us all know what it is (fo'sure I haven't exactly heard all *that* much of their music, so I wouldn't presume to be able to present a definitive exposition)

    And yeah, I didn't realise ewe were intentionally meaning to say the Mouse on mars and Stereolab comparisons were daft.
  20. avatar BlimeyitsSimey
    I like zebulon's idea.

    You could even subcategorise everyone into subgenres, cross referenced with like a big norn iron rock family tree. All hyperlinked of course. And under the heading Unpolishable Turds right at the top.

    We may be unpolishable turds, but you will never take our freedom!

    What kind of unpolishable turd are you? I'm a nasty big sticky cling on.
  21. avatar batgranny
    Aww.. c'mon, nobody likes to be pigionholed, but would you all really object catagories like, Indie, Rock, Dance, electronica, Metal and hiphop? it's not as if thars going to be funk/metal/DnB sounds like stereolab sections !
  22. avatar Niall Harden
    well can **** be in all of them except dance and drum'n'bass?
    :)