aimless conversations: like an intermission where the band keeps playing

Lifeless?! Uninspired?!

richieprep:
I just read two completely different reviews of Dave Matthews and Maroon 5 that came down to the same conclusion, which I found intriguing. First of all, the writer said that they both made 'very well-crafted songs that are a mixture of rock, pop, soul and funk'. Ah, I thought, that's funny, because that's how I would describe and promote Hanson's music! But the reviews in the end were far from positive. They said that their music was highly competent, but also failed to really click with the listener and was, in the final verdict, lifeless and uninspired. You know, too slick and by the numbers.

I know that's a kind of criticism levelled at Hanson too in a number of articles, especially, it seems, from a European perspective where critics often write off American rock music as too calculated and overproduced. I disagree, because I think Hanson makes very personal and emotional music, but I come across it quite often.

I wonder what you think of it and how you'd counter that type of criticism.

faerieclaire:
i've been thinking about this, and i think i've decided you just have to find the music you connect with. i really do believe 'rock-n-roll' is dead [god, nyssa...don't kill me! lol...] because there's nothing left to cover...no new ground to break because everyone's already done it.

i have a friend who swears up and down hanson is emo. *pauses for the stiffled laughter* i just laugh at her the same way i laugh off all these bands who everyone throws into the emo bin because what does that mean anyway? emo. emotional. maybe it's just me, but isn't all musical emotional in some aspect?

and that right there is how i think you counter someone accusing you of being a 'paint-by-the-industry's-numbers' band...you make your music and find people who connect with it. when it comes down to it, all that matters is you have a small following who appreciates what you're doing and makes it possible to continue what you're doing.

freshspringroll:
i'm a bit confussled heh.. what does emo mean? :x ... emotional..?

i always like the quote, 'the beauty of music is what it does for the individual'. i just think that is so true. music is such a universal medium, but what might be lifeless or uninspiring for one person, may mean the world to another person... i don't really like r n b music, or a lot of rap music, but i appreciate that a lot of other people do. it all comes down to what kind of sound touches you the most - which is why one critic's review is always so subjective and often frustrating for those who don't share that opinion. i know what you mean about the 'overproduced american' kinda sound... but ah... i guess as long as there are fans of that very music, you can't argue with it too much.

*apologies if i've rambled on and not really answered the question, lol...*

hitzjazzcat:
I'm kind of confused as to what "overproduced" means. Recent reviews have called Underneath "overproduced." Does that mean that there are sounds or effects in the music that don't really need to be there? That term just doesn't make any sense to me. How can critics rave about groups like Mannheim Steamroller, Enya, and Weather Report, but HANSON is "overproduced?" Once again, it makes no sense to me.

Why does a band have to fit into a category? Why can't we just let music be music instead of always trying to classify it and compare it to others. If you took all the words out of a Hanson song, what kind of music would it be?? Jazz? Instrumental pop? Funk? Who knows! I think we should all just let music be music and stop trying to classify it. Who cares! If it's good, it's good!

toona:
I can KIND OF see what people are saying when they listen to Underneath and think it sounds lifeless. My initial impressions of Hanson's studio recordings are always that they are far too polished ... to the point that it almost dulls the shine. I am absolutely IN LOVE with Underneath, but I do feel that you get more of a feel for what the band is really like through their acoustic/live stuff. Hanson is far from lifeless and uninspired. Especially when you see them on stage... they like... EXUDE energy at staggering levels on good nights... I even think that Underneath itself lends itself to a lot of high Hanson energy levels... but most of this is dampened slightly by their anal retentive studio perfectionism.

I can kind of see where the critics would see the album as over produced, but lifeless - not really.

I think maroon5 is boring =X

richieprep:
The reason behind posting this was really twofold. It went beyond just reading about Maroon 5 and Dave Matthews.

I own a number of records by artists personally or often critically associated with Hanson like Admiral Twin, Ben Folds, Fastball, Billy Joel, Matchbox 20, Matthew Sweet and Barenaked Ladies. Whenever I play these to my friends, I never get any reaction at all, or people comment that it is somehow too jokey, sterile or slick, and they don't get any real passion out of it.

When I read reviews of these in magazines, and also on Gregg Alexander, Goo Goo Dolls, Semisonic, and what have you, I get similar comments. All too often, Hanson is seen in the same light: good craftsmanship that lacks a certain urge or passion.

It really bothers me when any artist with an interest in melody, songcraft and studio techniques, who at least have mastered their craft, is seen as inferior to any number of singer-songwriters mumbling or shouting out their raw and off-key emotions in an often extremely monotonous manner.

It's that I always seem to have to defend myself and acts like these that really gets at me after a while. I appreciate and am open to roots music, so why would the reverse be so hard?

toona:
Wow, your friends either don't know what they're talking about or they just have terrible taste in music...? Seeing as how Ben Folds (for example) is a superior artist all around, and if you're not impressed with his songs, you could at least be impressed with his piano playing! O_o... I honestly don't see how anyone could see those artists as "sterile" or lacking in passion. I find Matchbox 20 boring because... I generally think all of their songs sound the same yadda yadda...

And as for reviewers in magazines - you have to look at what slant the people are coming from. I read one in PEOPLE the other day about "Underneath" that said Lulla Belle was a countryish track and that Hanson should look into being more acoustic...? I was like... "Hi. You're a retard. Therefore your review, out of sheer lack of knowledge of music in general, means absolutely nothing to me."

I don't know, personally I think untrained artists who scream into mics etc are... um.. bad. I may be a bit of a complete music snob, but I hate reading about people who were like, "Oh well... I took piano lessons for like... a month and decided it sucked, they just didn't want to do things MY way!" Maybe I'm just a traditionalist, but I believe in a foundation of skills before you can really expand on anything and be good at something. Someone who has never taken formal piano lessons cannot have the technique or ability as someone that has - even if that person has only taken lessons for a short period of time in order to become merely decent at the instrument rather than... you know... ben folds quality (which is just like... HI I'M REALLY JUST A BRAIN)

Okay, so if this post makes no sense. I'm sorry. LOL.

"You have to learn the rules before you can break them"

...That's the phrase I was looking for.

Anyway, I guess the point of the above is: I guess like... the power pop style (which is what I would consider all of those bands) isn't always people's thing. I'm confused as to why people are lacking the ability to find passion it (? honestly) and they're certainly not boring... most of them, anyway.

Well. Whatever O_o.

richieprep:
Wow, Toona, Claire and others, thank for the very insightful comments! As for my friends, no, I can't really say they have bad taste,but they are either into roots music (country, blues and blues rock, folk) or into individualists that border on the classical or jazz and are often a class by themselves (Joni Mitchell, Kate Bush, Joe Jackson, Elvis Costello). They somehow think that power pop as you called it is this kinda in-between genre that is neither about getting across your highly personal, straightforward, unadorned feelings and perceptions, nor experimental or avant-garde enough to really challenge their expectations. I think to them it smacks a bit of 'Brill Building' songcraft: writing strings of well-composed but impersonal songs for other artists to record. I can see that too, but I think it's just a fine thing in itself to be a consummate pop songwriter, and I love artists in any style just for their own merits.

In general, taking it more philosophically, I think it's about the culturally rich, but also very confusing times we are in. Before the twentieth century, any artistically and commercially successful painter or composer was also an extremely skilful craftsman who knew all the handiwork. Later on, minimalist composers, abstract and action painters, functionalist architects and the like all challenged that. Pop music is interesting, because it was initially all about breaking conventions with raw emotions and little skills. Seen from that perspective, well-crafted pop is almost a contradiction in itself. I think that's where it ultimately comes from.

I'll stop here.

fangirl:
It really bothers me when any artist with an interest in melody, songcraft and studio techniques, who at least have mastered their craft, is seen as inferior to any number of singer-songwriters mumbling or shouting out their raw and off-key emotions in an often extremely monotonous manner.

i agree. the vines for example... i have both their albums, and while it's good music when i just want to stick my finger up at the world and bond with a good looking friend who gives me the cds, i just can't believe all the hype and the press that says craig nicholls is a genius. um, no... sorry... he's just a demented kid screaming into a mic and courting the press so that his album sells. same with the white stripes -- their media saviness is where their "genius" lies. Otherwise, i've heard it before, thanks to the 60's now availible on CD.

meanwhile, bands like the ones you mentioned, matchbox 20, maroon 5, so on, they've touched an audience. how many records have matchbox 20 sold now? they've touched someone. any reviewer who thinks that hanson's record isn't going to touch an audience should take a little peek into these forums, and see what the heck we've done to that album. or maybe they should sit down with 'penny and me' and remember what it was like to have an absolutely amazing summer. those little "overproduced" twinkles are the little bits you thought you didn't remember, but they come up when reminiscing -- "that's right, i remember!! and that song was on the radio...!"

as for the whole "music lessons suck" culture... i took music lessons, i still do. i met an amazing musician, i hold a great respect for artists where many people don't, and well, i can play pretty ah pooh good. if you don't mind me saying.

laurafee:
sorry richiepiep.. i have to agree with the review.. maybe not THAT extreme, however i do not respect either of those bands in any way shape or form. Dave Matthews is boring beyond compare, everyone gets high and drunk at his concerts, yea no respect there. and the music isn't uninspired, but close, very repetitive. and Maroon 5.. OH don't even get me started. great musicians but AWFUL people. Dang they can play and sing and are awesome live, but they are slime balls. Adam, the lead singer, most egotistical man i have ever met. and all throughout the concert he was being beyond crude. He just knows he's a sex icon and takes that to the extreme.

now Hanson, that's another story.. no one is allowed to bash them. if i get what you're saying, which would be that some reviews have called them lifeless and uninspired, i would have to disagree. They can't be lifeless if they bring me life and inspiration. Their music has touched me in ways i cannot express with words. They inspire me like no one else can and no one can change that. So someone can call them lifeless and uninspired all they want, but i beg to differ because they are just the opposite for me.

hitzjazzcat:
Dave Matthews is boring beyond compare, everyone gets high and drunk at his concerts, yea no respect there.

What does getting high and drunk at his concerts have to do with respecting his musical ability? Dave Matthews' songs are generally good... who cares if he, his band, or his fans get high or drunk? That has nothing to do with musical ability... if anything, it probably makes him a better musician.

laurafee:
i have to disagree... Dave Matthews is not good.. and i am talking i respect the whole package deal. i don't just like the music, i have to respect the person as well to listen to them, and i don't respect him. i agree that they personally have nothing to do with respecting him musically, but how would i want to go to a show (IF i liked him) if the environment was something that i didn't want to be a part of?

rhythmicvenus:
i've heard it before, thanks to the 60's now availible on CD.

This unfortunately is true for just about everything. The world (not just music, but music especially) has come to just repeating itself. Is there really anything "original" out there any more? Everyone is now drawing from the past, and reviewers see this and pounce on it like it�s a flaw. I personally don't think that drawing on the past for the sake of trying to make something "better" is a flaw at all. More, I think, its another creative avenue you can take allowing yourself to enhance what once was, and make it your own.

However, on a counter note to that:

Taking a song, changing the key, some lyrics and adding a beat or two here and there does not qualify for making something from the past your own.... I think most of you know who I'm talking about here (the one band I can not stand), but it also goes for, of all people, Vanilla Ice. Yeah, you remember that big controversy about "Ice, Ice, Baby" being taken from a Queen song (name of the song escapes me at the moment), but yeah, Vanilla Ice, lost the law suite.

This goes for other things too, not just music. Silly little inventions, and big world projects included.

toona:
Bleh, personally... I think jazz is boring as heck. I just don't have the ear for it I guess. I like earlier jazz, more like... swing, big band stuff... ragtime era even... But real straight jazz. Yawwwwwnnn.

And DMB is really boring, whoever said that... I agree with you, I just didn't want to say it.. for I am from Connecticut, land of vehemently obsessed DMB fans.

The thing with Pop music is... is that the poopey on the radio, etc... GENERALLY sucks. It's all bad. This wasn't always the case... but it is now. People who are very into one genre and cannot appreciate or cross over into another genre are just as narrow as people who absolutely refuse to listen to anything else but their small little record collection and appreciate artists no matter how good or bad. I listen to a variety of genres. Generally I don't like rap (and its offshoots) and country... but that doesn't mean I don't like ANY country/rap etc. I think you can find soul in any artist who is sincere about their work... even the most bland sounding ones (See Ben Gibbards a la Death Cab For Cutie or Sarah Mclachlan... neither of them have particularly emotional voices... but there is a fair amount of feeling in their work) - I am not a limited music listener by any means. I have been playing piano classically for about 14 years and I enjoy classical music a lot, but generally my friends claim that all I listen to is indie music and britpop Hahahaha. People express themselves in different ways, thus the beauty of art... and I have heard quite a multitude of songs or bands that I would consider "uninspired" but Hanson, at the very least, is not one of them. I've already said my piece on the over-production of "Underneath" but I feel that Hanson, at least this time, has managed to pull it off in a tasteful manner. Some of the songs on the record don't need as much of a polished sound as they received but others, like "Underneath" and "Crazy Beautiful" are orchestrated in a way that SHOULD sound polished. Generally it depends on where you want to take the song.

I don't really think Pop was originally about breaking convention with little skill. Even though it was (rock and roll, anyway) about breaking the mold... I highly doubt little skill was involved... I just think less skilled artists managed to make it big in the wake of the artists who were truly phenomenal. And, of course, now... just as long as you have big boobs and tight shiny pants, you don't need to be able to do poopey to become a pop star! American Idol, in all of its crappiness, is a brilliant example of this phenomenon.

I disagree with the person who said that The White Stripes' genius lies in their media savviness. For having been a fan of The White Stripes way before they could even sell out a club, I think that they (out of all of those stupid bands that came out and got popular when they did... like The Hives, The Vines, and The Strokes) are actually legitimately special and good. It is basically Jack White's band. He taught Meg to play the drums... he writes all of the music, lyrics, etc. He is a phenomenal guitarist, I think, and quite a crafty song writer - his lyrics are witty and well written. I've seen them live with The Strokes and they totally out shined The Strokes (who, even though I like them, are boring and gimmicky). They are kind of big ROCK STARS now because they're all popular, but I do believe at the root of it, bands like The White Stripes are way more than just "knowing the media" - With anything in the media, knowing the media and your audience, and how to make money always helps... but I do not believe that that's what that band in particular is all about.

I agree with the person above in that I don't really think that drawing from older music is necessarily a bad thing. Most people don't have completely original ideas and everyone is working with the same exact 12 keys. Next thing you know Whole Tone music will become popularized and everyone will think its awesome but then it'll be done by someone else and everyone will be like... "been there, done that." Generally, the key with music is to not necessarily sound "different" but to inspire an emotion in a person. Obviously, you don't want people to think your song sounds exactly like someone else's song... or even that all of your music sounds the same... but just because music is stylistically similar to other music doesn't make it "yawn, i've heard this before... yawn..." music - that's not giving the artist any credit.

I mean, a lot of this is all personal taste... but hey, that's just my take on it.

I think "Ice Ice Baby" was a rip off of "Another One Bites The Dust" if I rememebr correctly =9... The bassline is extremely similar. Dun dun dun. Another one bites the dust... and another gone and another one gone...

blondie78:
Its all about what every individual likes,if you like a song,doesnt matter who its by or what music it is,you like it.So what if its not cool or recent stuff,its what you like.i play alot of the same songs all the time because i love them.I love Billy Joel's music,i am into everything New York,he is from New York and it so shows in his songs,it takes me there.He's fantastic.Maroon 5 bore me too,sometimes i dont know why some people are so popular,no offense to them but we are all different in what we like and i wouldnt change what i listen to for anyone.

I agree fangirl,i dont agree with the media's choice of what we SHOULD buy now,i dont wanna buy it!

faerieclaire:
to clarify for laura, emo is 'emotional' like you said and i guess it's mostly low-key, mellowish stuff. the label is more about the lyrics than the music. 'emo' tends to be more heart-felt i guess? i generally think of it as whiney boys who can't find girls because they're so d-mn annoying, but that's me being biased and ignorant. the only band [if you can even call them that because it's basically chris carrabba and a band so he's not labeled as a solo artist] i can really think of with that label is dashboard confessional. and again, like i said...i think it's the single most ridiculous 'genre' out there because all music is emotional. but correct me if i'm wrong on that...

which leads me to the dmb/matchbox twenty/maroon 5 thing. guys, take a step back and take an unbiased look at hanson. seriously. they're not different from these bands who you all claim are boing and uninteresting. there is NOTHING incredibly unique about hanson anymore, aside from this whole going indie thing and even that in itself is hardly a first in music. think about why you're all here, why you continue to listen to hanson...it's because the music moves you, correct? and i think nyssa put it beautifully when she said bands like matchbox twenty can sell so many albums because they're obviously touching someone.

the same goes for hanson. look at how much crap they get, how so very disregarded in the music industry they are. and really, i don't entirely blame some of the critics for writing some of the things they do. i don't like to do it, but there's criticisms here and there i agree with. hanson isn't the greatest band ever, though i would like to think they are. in my mind they are, but it's because their lyrics have touched and moved me in ways no one else's have.

so before you go bashing all these other bands, take a look and give it some thought because being in the position we are as hanson fans, i don't think we really have a lot of room to go about trashing other bands when really, the band we love isn't any different.

toona:
I admit my look on Hanson is biased, obviously. Whose isn't? I try to, when I am judging them for others, look at them in as objective a light as possible... and I pride myself in my ability to be able to step back and say, "Alright... Yes, I love them to death... BUT..." Not everything I listen to is everyone's cup of tea. Generally, I listen to a wide enough range of music that at least SOMETHING I listen to someone else I'm with will dig.

I tend to disagree with you that Hanson isn't "interesting" "anymore" (whatever that means) ... Generally, if you were to ask me who my favorite band was, I would probably say Hanson. If you were to ask me who I thought was the best band in my collection, they would probably NOT be who I would point out. You make a fair point. Hanson I feel is extremely special, and part of it - in my HONEST opinion - is in their live show. I don't really think a person can really appreciate them until you see them live. I know that if I hadn't seen them live each tour all of these years, or even at all (especially the 2000 tour) I probably would not appreciate/like them nearly as much. They put on a phenomenally energetic show with musicianship that is extremely admirable. I know that when I saw them at the Hartford/Sayreville shows in March there was more than once when I turned to my colleagues during someone's solo with my mouth open. Example: Taylor's solo in You Never Know in Sayreville caused us to look at each other and say, "Holy poopey. That was really. good." And it was. And they ARE. I feel like a lot of what makes them a really good band does NOT come through on their studio recordings for whatever reason... They are very caught up with perfection, and sometimes, for them, this is more counter productive than anything.

Hanson are not disregarded in the industry at all (not anymore, anyway), they're disregarded by the media - which is an entirely different story. I think half of the reason they had so many issues with their label is that they just kind of shunted htem aside assuming they were just another group of "one hit wonders" that would give up after a few years when they realized that they couldn't sell like they used to. And they didn't. That in itself is pretty ballsy and has gained them good attention all across the board. Who cares if MTV won't play them? Honestly. MTV isn't what matters.

Music is about touching the people, that agreed. But just because it touches someone doesn't make it good. And that's not really what I'm saying. I think Maroon5 can potentially be a band that I really would like... And I do like them. I have their album, I enjoy it... but it's repetative in themes musically and subjectively. They have huge capacity to be something totally great. I don't see them as uninspired, I just see them as nothing interesting. Like... they're this entity that has SO MUCH POTENTIAL to be incredibly cool and incredibly interesting but they just aren't. And that is the case, I feel, with a lot of musicians up-and-coming in mainstream pop culture these days. I'm not trashing them. At all. In fact, I ad mit that it is mostly a matter of opinion. And I will fully admit that I am probably the biggest music snob on this board, so therefore my opinions will be really anal and probably disparraging. Some people (obviously) think DMB is brilliant. I haven't really seen anyone who claims Maroon5 or Matchbox 20 are brilliant... but I'm sure there's someone out there ... It's all a sense of personal opinion.

...Not everyone is going to break any molds, obviously. But just because your music isn't something that no one has ever heard before doesn't mean it has to be boring or overdone. A lot of what is around, I feel, is boring and overdone. You can write another song about love or you can write another song about love. It can be the same old blah blah blah i'm so lonely crap or it can be like nothing you've ever heard but still about love. Human existance will always linger on these themes... it's not like anyone's thinking of anything new, here... We all have stories to tell and a lot of them are similar - Really... Music is all in the delivery.

And even if I were to say, "yeah, Hanson sucks... their songs are boring, the lyrics banal, they're ridiculous." At the very, very least they have delivery. They're so impassioned by their music that it is hard to see them as "uninspired" - and hey, I don't know if I said this before and if I'm contradicting myself I'm sorry... Those other bands everyone's been talking about aren't any less hard working and inspired than Hanson. They're just different.

What am I getting at here? I'm not really sure. Anyway, I guess the point of all of this comes down to the fact that deep down beneath it all I do, honestly believe that Hanson has something special that maybe some of these other artists don't. Maybe it's something different from whatever makes each artist special.. but I believe they have what it takes to be successful, and in the end, really brilliant.

You are forgetting that this is a band that became popular at extremely young ages! They still have years to mature fully in their musicianship! They still have time to get better (and they honestly have been) - they're heading towards their peak whereas other artists might be on the downslide.

faerieclaire:
beautifully and eloquently said toona.

i didn't say hanson was uninteresting, i said there was nothing unique about them when compared to other bands, harmonizing abilities aside. seven years ago they had that youth factor to fuel the fire of glory. if you're the average person, from the outside looking in, there's really not alot to draw you in besides the music. honestly, if i hadn't become a fan in 97, i really doubt i would be now. as much as i love hanson, sometimes i step back and go "why do they matter so much?" [of course, that's when i stick in something like "a song to sing" or "believe" and it hits me again.] i agree, you don't understand just how phenomenal hanson can be until you've seen them live. they may seem removed from the audience, but their ability to play live blows me away every time i see them.

you are right, it is the media that portrays them as not being creditable, not the industry. i wasn't thinking it through that far when i wrote that last night.

don't take everything i said to be arguing against hanson's capabilities. you're talking to a girl who firmly believes these boys have a pet sounds in them. i do not doubt their abilities or think they've hit their music peak. no, we're only just getting started. i was simply trying to point out the 'other side,' play devil's advocate, keep us all grounded with our thoughts.

*smiles* i absolutely LOVE when we do this in here.

toona:
No, I wasn't trying to interpret you that way... I was just... you know... babbling (and hung over). I agree with you on a lot of levels. I think that Hanson has the capacity to gain more fans right now, and if they weren't so stupidly marketed in 97 they would still have a considerably strong following (not that we're not strong... but you know what i'm saying) - OR, at the very least... more "casual listeners" - people that listen and enjoy but may not particularly feel compelled to go beyond that in any way.

And to Butterflyz... It revolved around the fact that this(my) generation essentially cannot come up with anything new.

People keep saying that and I think THAT is what I simply cannot agree with. Just the notion that we as a generation cannot come up with anything new? I mean, really. Look around you at artists who are already doing it - breaking molds and all kinds of things: Bjork, Ani Difranco, Ben Folds, Beck, Radiohead... even Nirvana who started the whole grunge thing. I'm sure there are people up and coming right now that we won't hear about for a number of years, but will be just as classic and phenomenal as any other greats in a generation. Ever notice how there are thousands of people doing the same thing but only a few are ever mentioned? What makes you think our generation is any different than another. This is always how it goes. Everyone kind of mulls along, one person comes, does something different... and whole load of other people follow. Then someone switches it up again, etc etc. I mean, Hanson aside - There are always great minds thinking up something that you haven't ever thought of before somewhere in the world... and that's what really makes it keep going.

richiepiep:
Look around you at artists who are already doing it - breaking molds and all kinds of things: Bjork, Ani Difranco, Ben Folds, Beck, Radiohead... even Nirvana who started the whole grunge thing.

I'll have to agree with Toona here. I've been around for a few years, so I tend to say 'seen that, been there' to most guitar-based rock and pop bands. But there are definitely artists following their own paths now, and as Hanson says, the demise of the recording industry as we know it can spark off a rebirth of more independent-minded artists. Once a single genre dominates the music world, people get tired of it and start looking for something new, that's a natural ebb and flow.

Of course, it is always possible to look for relatively obscure artists and say, rather snobbishly, oh, but artist X has done something like this before. But, seriously, how many people were listening to Gene Clark pioneering country rock back in 1966, or the Velvet Underground paving the way for punk in the same year? Or the Silver Apples playing synthesizers in 1967? How many were into the introspective folk jazz of Nick Drake, the jazz/soul/singer-songwriter fusion of Laura Nyro or the now classic pop-rock sound of Big Star? They didn't start a real movement until later - or even failed to do so. So with the benefit of hindsight, it's always easy to rewrite history and call them ('poor' implied) imitators.

Further, it is true in general that you have to look harder for pioneering artists. It's hard to understand now that people at the time thought Beethoven, ragtime music, Stravinsky or Beatles ill-structured noise, but that's what happened. If you just listen to Top 40 radio, then you would miss many original sounds.

Finally, it's true many bands followed in Nirvana's footsteps, and many have fused Jeff Buckley with a kind of Radiohead sound (Muse, Coldplay, Starsailor), but as these acts were short-lived, we should be grateful that other artists expanded on that and fleshed it out beyond being mere copycats.

somethinggrey:
I've been thinking about this one (after spending aaaages reading all the posts) and the question seems to have kind of..faded away, but it is an interesting post..

i think what(someone)said is very true.. for a lot of us, having liked them for 7 years..im 16 now..which means i've liked them since i was 9. and so much poopey has gone on in my life through those 7 years and the only thing that has remained a constant has been Hanson.. and to everyone else, I think, I just sound crazy, because I like Hanson so much..but it's not something I can explain to anyone really.

Most people I play Hanson to, think it's good, but on the other hand, only yesterday I was having a conversation with a friend, who has never really listened to Hanson, and still goes with the whole mmmbop cliche thing, but he said to me that Hanson's lyrics are shallow, not deep and unmeaningful.. which is pretty much what this post is about, because I had to disagree.. maybe it's only me who the lyrics are meaningful to, but I showed him some lyrics, and I think in the end, he realised that while in his opinion they weren't as meaningful as Amen, Slayer..lyrics(cmon..i really like those bands, but to say their lyrics are more meaningful than Hansons..)it's just the way they're put across..

and I kind of agree with him.. for example.. Rock n Roll Razorblade..not exactly the deepest of songs..maybe.. but for him(and myself in a way)as a self-harmer, its just not the best way of putting across..bleeding and poopey lol.. it's like upbeat music with..lyrics about stuff, which..ok, have a hanson edge, but its the subject matter that ud listen to heavier bands for..and maybe that's why Hanson struggle to reach a larger audience..they're so ecclectic though, that while i love everything of theirs, many people would only like the more upbeat ones, or only like the acoustic ones or whatever..

my friends point was i guess that to him, hanson are meaningless, uninspired, just like anyone else he choses to listen to.. and im biased because they mean so much to me, but i think people are always going to find some bands "lifeless" and "uninspired" and obviously, whatever the critics say, these bands will affect someone, else noone would buy them. In conclusion, I'd say not to listen to the critics..I tend not to anyway..I mean I'll listen to what they have to say, but I won't take any of their opinions before deciding on my own. Whatever they have to say, they should have a reason for it.. if they find it lifeless, because the lyrics are about..doing heroine(lol)and that doesnt relate to them, then ok, but if i was a heroine addict id read it and think hmm, i'll give them a listen, i might like it, it might be meaningful to me..

iv rambled on enough.

iwc2ufan99:
but what might be lifeless or uninspiring for one person, may mean the world to another person...

too too true when i was a little girl - i loved the spice girls - i really took what they said seriously and it meant something to me - so to me, it wasn't lifeless, it was chock full of "girl power" and as the kick arse lil 13 year old that i was, i lived for that stuff...

where as to a lot of say...adults, haha...it was lifeless, calculated pop...and maybe it actually was, but to me at the time, it was exactly what i wanted

but a better example...DMB...the original example in this post. i would agree with the european reviewers a little bit. it's very well written music. i think dave is a talented guy. but i never felt him at all. he just doesn't do it for me. does that mean his music IS lifeless? no, i'm sure he really puts his heart and soul into it. but there just isn't anything there for me.

fangirl:
the whole "our generation can't think of anything new" arguement. this is what we've done so far:

-invented MTV
-declared death upon MTV
-file-sharing and music downloads
-taken fanclubs to the internet
-decided that "grunge" was a genre
-pioneered electronica/dance and put emotion to it (Air for example -- beautiful work)
-god, so much more...

the thing is, we never really know we've got something until it's gone. all of those "brilliant, new things" from past generations didn't mean anything at the time ('pet sounds', our favourite album to quote, only went platinum a couple of years ago), i mean, we didn't reliase what we had until we lost kurt cobain.

we're on the ball, man, it's just that people don't know it yet.

toona:
A few things (of course)... I like this discussion :)

On Hanson's Lyrics: I think that their lyrics are sometimes just... you know... words to put to a melody. They have their good moments and they have their bad moments ("Down" ... HONESTLY. Were they just like, "I'm depressed so I can't think of anything good. ah pooh. Or... Doowwwn dowwwn dowwwnn...") - mostly when it comes to the tracks that end up on albums they put on the songs that are the best (obviously) or at least up there. I've come to the conclusion that they don't put personal songs on albums, which is unfortunate, because tracks like "Bridges Of Stone" and "End Of The Line" have really wonderful, deep, and meaningful lyrics. I think their lyrics are really quirky and enjoyable, most of the time, and they do go deep when it is necessary - some of their songs... I'd say a lot on Underneath like "Believe" and "When You're Gone" are meaningful on many different levels - and that is when they are the most excellent - as far as their writing goes. They write a lot about love and stuff - typical rock act Sometimes I want to hit them for that - like... "Deeper" ... GIVE ME A BREAK ISAAC! lol.

I like their lyrics though, because I feel like it's always written about me. They describe what it's like to be a teenager very well - especially on This Time Around.

Music Lessons Suck: Not. I have so little respect for "musicians" who go through life like... "omg fudge music lessons I don't need that! I'm a super star!" Trust me. If you want chops you take lessons, classes, and study - it doesn't matter what kind of music you play. Hanson started out playing classically and I'm pretty positive, given their improvement, that they have had some training in all facets of their playing&singing (singing especially) since they started. Musicians work and learn from other musicians and that is that - even if you aren't always in a formal "lesson" setting you still have to abide by the same rules. I have never met a decent musician who has that attitude about music lessons...

Though, I must say, if Taylor ever went and got lessons from any conservatory buffs they would beat him up because of his terrible form!

Dooon't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone ;)