lost highway

"Hey what were you guys talking about? Oh yeah? Uh Huh? Well I don't care." Perfectly valid......and banal. You paint a rich taperstry of apathy that has enhanced our conversation, thank you.

Yeah WTF guys? How is discussing lyrical content with obvious religious implications off-color? Posting 'I don't care' is like attending an open debate and getting on the microphone and saying 'I don't care, and you're dumb for talking about this'. If you don't care, don't post. I thought this was a place for communication, not playground politics.

Is that really true though? Sure, YHF is not concerned with butt shaking as much as other agendas, but in different ways I think Feist, Hot Snakes and Radiohead are three completely unique examples of effective rhythm sections that promote groove. Really I think Wilco does too, but it's in a different domain then what that guy was referencing. But really if rhythm power is what you want, all things are inferior to Afro-Cuban stuff, or James Brown, Fela Kuti.......there's a million variants.

That is really well stated. If someone wants to whine about how amazing bands are underappreciated I'll pat them on the back, but when people have to complain about a lack of good music they need to leave the house. I've gotten at least a dozen mind blowing albums from the Denver Public Library in the last year. There's so much great stuff. If you're fixated on rumbling your car seat just get excited for the new Wu-Tang.

The i tunes on your pc defaults to aac. I pods play both without quibble.

The thing to keep in mind is not only bit rate but file type. You get a higher quality out of an AAC (the standard i tunes format) than a normal mp3 with the same bitrate. For example (this is a guesstimate) say 128 AAC sounds the same as 160 mp3 or better. That's because an AAC is really an mp4 which manages the data more efficiently to get higher audio resolution at a lower bit rate, whoop, dropped my pocket protector.

That's just the thing though......how can you debate the quality of a term that has no clear definition? I'd say indie has more elasticity as a term than punk ever did. The word everyone used in the 90's was alternative, alternative to what? And if indie is anything independent than your cousins unsigned zydeco band is the best thing to happen to indie.

Actually it started in Asia. Later the Moors brought a pre-guitar to Spain during one of the short lived periods of multi-culturalism and relgious tolerance. It was there that it got closest to what we now recognize as an acoustic guitar. The blues uses harmonic theory from European music played on existing American folk instruments in a way that is distinctly African-American. Later you have folks like Les Paul innovating the technology, Elvis mixed rock with country, Chuck Berry showed how the guitar could really be played, Little Richard brought the piano to new heights. My point is n

They're like us only creepier..............

Sounds fair enough. But my inflammatory reaction brought on a good debate. So I will rage on for those who are not yet bored. Blues was the result of mixing African and 'White' folk music. It was sung in English on guitars invented in Spain by slaves. A similar mixture develops between the two worlds creating Jazz, R&B, multiple forms of American folk music (including country), and eventually rock and roll. It was called 'race' music not because it was solely created and engineered by black people for black people, but instead because black people were intimately involved in its crea

If thats part of the article I don't think I will read it. Number one: Wilco has admitted to being heavenly influenced by musicians who are black (As if that matters anyways). Likewise, Kotche could do a doctoral dissertation on syncopation, in fact he nearly did; it's called Mobile. Every great, original American music is indebted both to 'whites' and 'blacks' and historically I've marveled at how critics and narrow-minded fools have obsessed over this race issue, while multi-ethnic bands have laughed their way up the charts. For example: Booker T. and the M.G.'s, Dave Brubeck Quartet.

I always hear people gripe about how new music all sucks. I think this is a result of laziness. Everyone has their own taste but come on: Band Of Horses Blonde Redhead new Radiohead Scout Niblett New Pornographers Feist Bonny Prince Billy Magnolia Electric Co. Animal Collective TV on the Radio Battles Dr. Dog PJ Harvey Bill Callahan Destroyer the Weakerthans Maritime Mastodon Shellac Devandra Banhart I think indie means very little. For this reason swearing off a genre that doesn't particularly exist is about as relevant as claiming it is your favorite thing. It is the same situation o

I always figured growing Bob Dylan's beard means becoming wayward with your lady. Dylan doesn't have the best track record for being faithful to the women in his life.

I support your guess coming to fruition, to the extent that I grant you god-like powers in order to ensure this. Go forth and bring us new Wilco tracks.

I was holding out my judgement until I had digested it more. I have concluded that In Rainbows is fantastic. Far superior to Hail to the Thief. The sequence has started to make sense (especially the first two tracks, well placed) and I think it has achieved the difficult status of being more accesible while not losing any artistic daring (listen to the time signatures and harmonic progressions....wow!).

Only a Northern Song The Long and Winding Road Obla Di Obla Da Doctor Robert Lovely Rita

Yeah I think forever McCartney will be mythologized as the gifted populist and Lennon the eccentric. I've argued that sometime around Revolver the Lennon/McCartney writing team stopped being quite so involved and you can trace each song to its point of origin. Its interesting to see their peaks and valleys from there out. I have recently become fascinated with the idea that 'A Day In the Life' is the last true 50/50 collaboration. It often feels like the most substantial moment in an overhyped album that happened between two superior ones. You might poo on that idea and you wouldn't be

The tricky thing for me is that Ram and All Things Must Pass are better than any single Lennon album, but he had a much higher hit to miss ratio. McCartney S/T is little but scraps (with one or two beautiful moments i.e. 'Junk') while Plastic Ono Band is awesome. And lets face it, no matter how much you like Wings it is way dorkier than anything Lennon or Harrison would ever do.

One day I admitted to myself that this was not true. I thought I would be struck dead the instant I thought it..... But seriously, its funny how it feels like changing favorite Beatles albums or learning to appreciate your least favorite Beatle feels like a huge personal change. I used to thing Paul was nothing but a tool and that George was always a genius oppressed by egos. Turns out Paul had some streaks that beat the devil out of John's low points and George used to be a mediocre songwriter. He was however, oppressed by egos and later became an amazing songwriter.

When has Radiohead been all about rock and roll? Thats like saying Wilco isn't enough of an alt-country band. You know what album totally doesn't rock A Love Supreme, there's no fucking rockin guitar....yuck. Same thing with Muleskinner Blues, and Black Star. What the fuck is going on with music these days, nothing sounds like Abbey Road and I can't figure out why.

I'm glad somebody likes it. I guess I am always glued to Clouds Taste Metallic and Soft Bulletin. Yoshimi seemed fun but gets old quick and Mystics seemed like they were at the end of their rope. Honestly you're the first person I've encountered who enjoyed it........at least someone does.

The All Music Guide to Rock could tell you that. Not a risk in that list. I am reminded of the scene in Hi-Fidelity when Cusack names Nirvana Smells Like Teen Spirit in his top five side one track one list. Jack Black says "God, that isn't obvious. Do you even like music? WHy don't you just pick side one track one of Beethoven's fifth symphony"

I think that is an overexaggerated but ultimately fair criticism. There is inarguably, a density to In Rainbows that might not yield a memorable song until we've spent more time with it; or if your right, it is a lot of genius playing and arranging that has a sum lesser than its parts. Which is essentially an artistic failure. This sounds like a conversation about James Joyce.

In all due respect sir, Mystics was a flaming pile of garbage.......In Rainbows is at the very least fascinating, further listening will reveal if it is great. At this point my greatest criticism is that it is so full of ideas that the track list could be easily shuffled and attain the same results. It might be too much an amorphous glob of musical genius to have the arc that makes OK Computer or Kid A classics.

It seems really common that bands with long careers tour in support of a new album and play very little of their second to last album. Of course because they just spent a year promoting the last one and have played the songs a ton. In two years someone will be commenting on how the band is playing very little SBS stuff and mostly things from their new album and AGIB/YHF.