Author Topic: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...  (Read 6932 times)

Pidgeon

  • Guest
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #30 on: May 19, 2009, 01:33:52 AM »
There's a commercial station here in Wilmington that definitely gets away with more than most. I don't even know what the format would be, they've played everything from The Smiths to Hank Williams to Jandek (I've only heard experimental stuff late saturday nights).

It's not completely free form because a lot of the same songs pop up from time to time.

fonpr

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 4099
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #31 on: May 19, 2009, 09:10:12 AM »
Charlie Pickett and the Eggs/MC3
"Like it or not, Florida seems dedicated to a 'live fast, die' way of doing things."

bakersfieldchimp

  • Achilles bursitis
  • Posts: 131
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2009, 04:50:05 PM »
On a local scale, Peter Parker are my favorite Seattle-area band, and hardly anyone goes to see them anymore. It's sad. They broke up for about four years, then got back together in 2006 and have played shows every few months, but they just never seem to draw the crowd they deserve. They've got an awesome noisy punky/rock thing going, their lyrics are pretty smart, they've got a good, self-deprecating sense of humor, and everyone I've dragged with me to their shows has ended up really liking them, so it pains me greatly when there's only twenty or thirty people sticking around to watch their set, if that.

Pastor Josh

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 599
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2009, 07:14:48 PM »
On a local scale, Peter Parker are my favorite Seattle-area band, and hardly anyone goes to see them anymore. It's sad. They broke up for about four years, then got back together in 2006 and have played shows every few months, but they just never seem to draw the crowd they deserve. They've got an awesome noisy punky/rock thing going, their lyrics are pretty smart, they've got a good, self-deprecating sense of humor, and everyone I've dragged with me to their shows has ended up really liking them, so it pains me greatly when there's only twenty or thirty people sticking around to watch their set, if that.

That's weird.  I used to love Peter Parker.  Honestly, I think I find out about them searching the net for info on Spider-Man.  I haven't listened to them in years.  I should dig their stuff back out.  To follow up on an earlier comment, I've actually found the internet to make it harder to find new stuff.  Somehow, I found out about a lot of weird and offbeat music, movies, books, etc., in my pre-net high school days, but these days it seems all the stuff I read online just cross-promotes the same stuff. Another reason I'm glad I found WFMU.

For the topic, though, I can't believe that The Hold Steady aren't just super-popular.  They're hardly my favorite band, but I like them, and they seem like they should be really, really huge.  Maybe it's just 'cause I live in the sticks, but every time I mention them to someone, all I get is a blank stare.  And although he's pretty well known in comic circles, I don't understand why more people don't read Chris Ware. 
Who I don't have chocolate?

Scot

  • Achilles bursitis
  • Posts: 165
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2009, 09:32:10 PM »
thanks for the entries!

i guess what i was thinking when i proposed this was: who are some totally accessible artists who for some reason (probably just level of exposure) people seem to have not much interest in? (of course, there are people who are interested - just not as many as you/i would expect.)

so i totally TOTALLY get the reigning sound submission - it's insane to me that greg cartwright isn't all over npr, or mid-level venues to young and old folks alike. the guy is a genius, and he writes great songs that, it seems to me, should be stuck in the heads of way more people on this planet.

another band i left off was MOTO - esp "kill MOTO"-era MOTO. crazy big hooks, enormous sing-alongs, clever + funny + stupid lyrics ... listening to that record, it's hard for me to imagine a world of kids who wouldn't like it. pretty much the same goes for the fastbacks, who may be one of the most criminally underrated bands of the last 30 years.

jbissell

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 1807
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #35 on: May 19, 2009, 10:14:38 PM »
Director: Charles Burnett

nec13

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 2397
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #36 on: May 19, 2009, 11:32:16 PM »
Charles Burnett is a great choice. I've long wanted to see Killer of Sheep, but I haven't done so yet.
Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor.

bakersfieldchimp

  • Achilles bursitis
  • Posts: 131
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #37 on: May 20, 2009, 12:31:54 AM »
On a local scale, Peter Parker are my favorite Seattle-area band, and hardly anyone goes to see them anymore. It's sad. They broke up for about four years, then got back together in 2006 and have played shows every few months, but they just never seem to draw the crowd they deserve. They've got an awesome noisy punky/rock thing going, their lyrics are pretty smart, they've got a good, self-deprecating sense of humor, and everyone I've dragged with me to their shows has ended up really liking them, so it pains me greatly when there's only twenty or thirty people sticking around to watch their set, if that.

That's weird.  I used to love Peter Parker.  Honestly, I think I find out about them searching the net for info on Spider-Man.  I haven't listened to them in years.  I should dig their stuff back out. 

They're really close to having enough stuff for a new album, and their new stuff is really good, they just need to get their act together and actually record it. My fiancee and I are befriending them (very very sloooowwwly), and were entertaining the idea of seeing if they would play a set at our wedding because we both like them a lot, but I'm thinking it'd be a pretty long shot.

Quote
And although he's pretty well known in comic circles, I don't understand why more people don't read Chris Ware. 

I love Jimmy Corrigan, but I can't get into his other stuff for the life of me. There's only so much depressing bleakness I can take, I guess.

Pastor Josh

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 599
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #38 on: May 20, 2009, 01:01:34 AM »
On a local scale, Peter Parker are my favorite Seattle-area band, and hardly anyone goes to see them anymore. It's sad. They broke up for about four years, then got back together in 2006 and have played shows every few months, but they just never seem to draw the crowd they deserve. They've got an awesome noisy punky/rock thing going, their lyrics are pretty smart, they've got a good, self-deprecating sense of humor, and everyone I've dragged with me to their shows has ended up really liking them, so it pains me greatly when there's only twenty or thirty people sticking around to watch their set, if that.

That's weird.  I used to love Peter Parker.  Honestly, I think I find out about them searching the net for info on Spider-Man.  I haven't listened to them in years.  I should dig their stuff back out. 

They're really close to having enough stuff for a new album, and their new stuff is really good, they just need to get their act together and actually record it. My fiancee and I are befriending them (very very sloooowwwly), and were entertaining the idea of seeing if they would play a set at our wedding because we both like them a lot, but I'm thinking it'd be a pretty long shot.

Quote
And although he's pretty well known in comic circles, I don't understand why more people don't read Chris Ware. 

I love Jimmy Corrigan, but I can't get into his other stuff for the life of me. There's only so much depressing bleakness I can take, I guess.

Where can one hear new Peter Parker stuff, if one is in the midwest?  Also, I know what you mean about Chris Ware, but I think when Rusty Brown is over, August of 2239, it will rival Jimmy Corrigan.
Who I don't have chocolate?

Martin

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3629
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #39 on: May 20, 2009, 03:58:24 AM »
Charles Burnett is a great choice. I've long wanted to see Killer of Sheep, but I haven't done so yet.

Make it a priority, it's amazing. I watched a bootleg of it over and over for many years, until it came out, beautifully remastered, on DVD last year. Watching it in that quality for the first time knocked me out.

masterofsparks

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3323
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #40 on: May 20, 2009, 06:33:52 AM »
Charles Burnett is a great choice. I've long wanted to see Killer of Sheep, but I haven't done so yet.

I loved To Sleep With Anger when I saw it on VHS many years ago but I haven't been able to see it again. I don't think it's out on DVD.
I'll probably go into the wee hours.

Shaggy 2 Grote

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3892
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #41 on: May 20, 2009, 10:18:51 AM »
See, I'd say that both Chris Ware and Joe Frank are pretty huge for what they do -- Ware does New Yorker covers, which has to be the holy grail for any cartoonist.  And Joe Frank and Gregory Whitehead are like the only two people in America who have made a career out of making radio plays, and Joe Frank is the famous one.  He's definitely one of the only people we've ever played on The Acousmatic Theater Hour that listeners have actually heard of.

But maybe that's just the state we're in now -- the culture in general is fragmenting into little clusters of geeks, and has been for many years now.  Although maybe that mythical era in the late 50s/early 60s when the average middle-class American read Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and had opinions about Picasso and Jackson Pollock is just that, a myth.

Anyway, I think the future is pan-geekdom, wherein online communities like this one share their various bodies of knowledge.  One area I wish I knew more about was contemporary art, beyond the usual contingent of middlebrow Warholian con men.  I went to see an exhibit of non-famous local artists at The Brooklyn Museum of Art a few years ago, and it was 100 times better than sensation, that Damien Hirst thing that got Giuliani so riled up.  But I can't remember any of the artists' names.  Then when I do get excited by an artist, like Kahinde Wiley, I look up and all the sudden they're doing car ads.
Oh, good heavens. I didn’t realize. I send my condolences out to the rest of the O’Connor family.

Stupornaut

  • Achilles Tendon Bursitis
  • Posts: 796
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #42 on: May 20, 2009, 10:58:00 AM »
Anyway, I think the future is pan-geekdom, wherein online communities like this one share their various bodies of knowledge.

I think that's the present, though in most cases "pan-geekdom" means "have a strong opinion on topics as varied as Star Wars, anime and old Nintendo games".

It seems to me like pretty much every music act that either debuted or released their best album sometime this decade is a niche artist, with the rare exception of someone like Kanye West or the American Idol participants. It's not like 1984, where everyone owned Thriller and Purple Rain and you could buy cassette tapes at the 7-11. Still, I think Jean Grae, Annie and King Khan deserve at least a bit more exposure.
twitter.com/natepatrin //\\ natepatrin.tumblr.com

buffcoat

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 6214
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #43 on: May 20, 2009, 11:18:38 AM »
Anyway, I think the future is pan-geekdom, wherein online communities like this one share their various bodies of knowledge.

I think that's the present, though in most cases "pan-geekdom" means "have a strong opinion on topics as varied as Star Wars, anime and old Nintendo games".

It seems to me like pretty much every music act that either debuted or released their best album sometime this decade is a niche artist, with the rare exception of someone like Kanye West or the American Idol participants. It's not like 1984, where everyone owned Thriller and Purple Rain and you could buy cassette tapes at the 7-11. Still, I think Jean Grae, Annie and King Khan deserve at least a bit more exposure.



It's not like when we were young, and you could just walk down to your local club and see Nirvana.
I really don't appreciate your sarcastic, anti-comedy tone, Bro!

Shaggy 2 Grote

  • Space Champion!
  • Posts: 3892
Re: artist-types that should be WAY bigger than they are ...
« Reply #44 on: May 20, 2009, 11:21:29 AM »
Oh, by the way, let me plug my friend's site about this sort of stuff:

http://hilobrow.com

Full disclosure: I write for them about once a week - just short 50-100 word pieces wishing high- and lowbrow figures happy birthday - but it's just something I do for fun.
Oh, good heavens. I didn’t realize. I send my condolences out to the rest of the O’Connor family.