Author Topic: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...  (Read 6941 times)

Pidgeon

  • Guest
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2009, 03:08:51 PM »
How do you guys find out about all these things?

J. Garbage

  • Guest
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2009, 03:23:16 PM »
Paul Dinello was one of the key writers and funniest actors in Strangers with Candy, but neither him nor the show get the credit they deserve, IMO. Colbert is huge now, but I still laugh at SwC more than I do his show.

SECONDED!!

Joffrey Jellineck is one of the best characters in television history.

jamesp

  • Tarsel tunnel syndrome
  • Posts: 353
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2009, 04:18:15 PM »
This is a good topic. I can't really think of an author or filmmaker. But I will nominate two bands: Desperate Bicycles and The Monks. Desperate Bicycles were one of the first bands to self-produce and self-release their own music. They helped to catalyze the growth of independent music and they produced some really good material to boot. Unfortunately, all of their stuff is OOP. The Monks were just a great garage rock band that more people should listen to.


I just heard the Monks for the first time a few weeks ago when their album was reissued. Great album and I was surprised I'd never heard of them. I feel like the dB's deserve more attention. Stands for Decibels is classic stuff and it's unfair that not many people talk about them anymore.

Chris L

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2780
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2009, 05:01:14 PM »
Charles Portis (author) and Comet Gain (band)

dania

  • Tarsel tunnel syndrome
  • Posts: 383
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2009, 09:31:11 PM »
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIANSTACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIAN
STACIANSTACIAN


Gilly

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2110
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2009, 09:40:51 PM »
The Monks, Orange Juice and the Clean are all critically acclaimed and known by most music nerds... I don't know if any of those bands really belong outside of that realm. I wouldn't think any of them belong on classic rock radio and if you don't belong there, your band kind of becomes one that only music heads really know about. So, while I agree that those are all great bands, I don't really know how much bigger they could really get.

nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2009, 09:48:46 PM »
The Monks and The Clean probably would not belong on classic rock radio. But Orange Juice is tuneful, upbeat pop music. I think they'd be radio friendly. I mean, you hear a couple of Edwyn Collins songs from time to time. His solo output isn't too far a departure from his work with Orange Juice.

I think that the problem with compiling a list such as this is that is very subjective. I may think that the Monks, The Clean, and Orange Juice should be more popular. But someone else may think they're garbage. As you said, the interests of music nerds and the interests of casual radio listeners do not necessarily jive.
Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

dania

  • Tarsel tunnel syndrome
  • Posts: 383
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2009, 10:37:15 PM »
We could also talk about "artist types" that were overshadowed by bigger-seeming bands at the time.  For example: Babes in Toyland overshadowed by Hole even though Babes in Toyland were far far farrrr better. 

Shaggy 2 Grote

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3892
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2009, 11:29:38 PM »
JG, Potter is pretty damn big, I'd say as big as TV writers go. At least here in Europe; don't know about the rest of the world though.

Yeah, he's mightily underappreciated here.  It took me forever to dig up published editions of his work, and I think Singing Detective only came out on DVD a few years ago.

How do you guys find out about all these things?

The Friends of Tom board!  And listening to WFMU, and generally having friends who are smarter than I am.
Oh, good heavens. I didn’t realize. I send my condolences out to the rest of the O’Connor family.

Pidgeon

  • Guest
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2009, 11:32:42 PM »
Sometimes it's just a drag living in a place that like forty miles from a record store (or even a Target). Hell, I wouldn't know about WFMU if it wasn't from reading Matt Groening's wikipedia page.

Shaggy 2 Grote

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3892
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2009, 11:42:55 PM »
There's always the internet.  I know it's no substitute, but even if you're broke, there are always great obscure out-of-print records up for free, and semi-legally, on people's blogs -- check out Doug Schulkind's posts on the WFMU blog to start.
Oh, good heavens. I didn’t realize. I send my condolences out to the rest of the O’Connor family.

A.M. Thomas

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 858
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #26 on: May 19, 2009, 12:02:56 AM »
I like this thread.

Musician:
Nesey Gallons...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsIaa3jEg44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SK9Z-QgPSE

Writer:
Tao Lin
(Is he considered "big"?)

Filmmaker:
I'll agree with Jodorowsky.

Radio Talent:
JOE FRANK!

I'm not a chicken,  you're a turkey.

nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2009, 12:27:34 AM »
How do you guys find out about all these things?

It's the obvious answer, but as Groteface Killah said, the Internet is the best way to find out about a lot of obscure and not-so-obscure bands. You'd be amazed by how much musical information/recommendations/downloads you can find on blogs or message boards like this. You can basically find any album you want on a blog. I mainly use blogs for the OOP material. Also, music-related message boards are also a great place for discovering music. For example, I discovered a lot of bands just by lurking on the Sound Opinions Message Board.

Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

Gilly

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2110
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2009, 01:01:04 AM »
The Monks and The Clean probably would not belong on classic rock radio. But Orange Juice is tuneful, upbeat pop music. I think they'd be radio friendly. I mean, you hear a couple of Edwyn Collins songs from time to time. His solo output isn't too far a departure from his work with Orange Juice.

I think that the problem with compiling a list such as this is that is very subjective. I may think that the Monks, The Clean, and Orange Juice should be more popular. But someone else may think they're garbage. As you said, the interests of music nerds and the interests of casual radio listeners do not necessarily jive.

I was actually going to say that Orange Juice might belong on classic rock radio... but you don't hear The Smiths there. Really, if they can't play an arena, X band is probably going to be lost to those who seek out good music.

nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #29 on: May 19, 2009, 01:13:28 AM »
I was actually going to say that Orange Juice might belong on classic rock radio... but you don't hear The Smiths there. Really, if they can't play an arena, X band is probably going to be lost to those who seek out good music.

Yeah, you're right. It's a shame. If it's possible, it's even worse now because radio playlists are so tightly controlled and limited in their scope. There's no difference in what you'd hear on an alternative radio station in New York City vs. what you'd hear on an alternative radio station in Columbus, Ohio. Broadcast deregulation has led to the homogenization of commercial radio and has effectively killed whatever was once good about it. There's really no reason to listen to it anymore. That's why WFMU is so great, because its the antithesis of the average radio station.
Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.