[The Soup Nazi]

Feeding Back: Conversations with Alternative Guitarists from Proto-Punk to Post-Rock is a collection of interviews with 26 of the most innovative musicians of the last few generations, including Tom Verlaine, Rowland S. Howard, James Williamson, Zoot Horn Rollo, Lenny Kaye, Richard Thompson, Lee Ranaldo, and Lydia Lunch. Although the discussions are intended to stand alone, taken together they capture a guitar tradition that runs counter to the mainstream pantheon, from sources like the Seeds and Captain Beefheart, to the MC5 and the Voidoids, to the Birthday Party and Dinosaur Jr., and beyond. This underground lineage ultimately becomes an informal movement, with its members—additional subjects include Keith Levene, Johnny Marr, J Mascis, Bob Mould, and John Frusciante—engaging in a musical conversation. From the proto-punk of the Stooges to the post-punk of Sonic Youth, from the Krautrock of Neu! to the post-rock of Tortoise, Feeding Back charts this alternative thread as it makes its way through rock guitar from the late ’60s to the present.

Introduction: The Quine Machine
1) …If You Dug It: Lenny Kaye
2) The Individualist: Richard Thompson
3) Don’s Secret: Zoot Horn Rollo (Bill Harkleroad)
4) Doing the Work: Wayne Kramer
5) Riff Appeal: James Williamson
6) Forst Exposure: Michael Rother
7) Infinite Delay: Richard Pinhas
8 ) Love Theme from The Twilight Zone: Tom Verlaine
9) They Say the Neon Lights are Bright on the Bowery: Cheetah Chrome
10) Gun, Guitar, Bullhorn: Lydia Lunch
11) Meta Box: Keith Levene
12) Purloiner: Rowland S. Howard
13) The Shi(f)t: Fred Frith
14) The Shakespeare Squadron: Glenn Branca
15) Starting with Thunders: Bob Mould
16) Infinity Suitcase: Lee Ranaldo
17) The Believer: Johnny Marr
18) Purple Sparkle: J Mascis
19) Reverend Spaceman: Jason Pierce
20) Furtive Gestures: David Pajo
21) The Joy of Despair: Kim Deal & Kelley Deal
22) The Radiant Guitarist: John Frusciante
23) Psychedelic Sound Freak: Michio Kurihara
24) Fennesz + Not-Fennesz: Christian Fennesz
25) Black Wolf, White Wolf: Ben Chasny

http://www.feeding-back.com/

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

I've always thought the term "post-punk" is as disingenuous as the term "post-modern" considering that both punk and modern continual to exist, we are not beyond or after them. In the most literal sense, "post-punk" can be a term to describe the influence of music after the advent of punk music, but it seems to me the term (like all artistic terms from baroque and gothic to rock and roll and punk these originated as criticisms) was a criticism insinuating a decline or end of authentic punk. That is not true. Punk is not dead. New wave and grunge sure may have died, but punk most certainly is alive and well.

 

Exhibit A
Subhumans Cradle to the Grave 1983

 

Exhibit B
Civil Disobedience "In a Few Hours of Madness EP 1993

 

Exhibit C
A Global Threat Out In the Dark" 2002
Exhibit D
underground crust bands well into the future 2012

Exhibit E
and look who just came out with an album last year, Defiance Out of Order 2011

[hipster_bebop_junkie]

Interesting, thanks for the heads up.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I've always thought the term "post-punk" is as disingenuous as the term "post-modern" considering that both punk and modern continual to exist, we are not beyond or after them. In the most literal sense, "post-punk" can be a term to describe the influence of music after the advent of punk music, but it seems to me the term (like all artistic terms from baroque and gothic to rock and roll and punk these originated as criticisms) was a criticism insinuating a decline or end of authentic punk. That is not true. Punk is not dead. New wave and grunge sure may have died, but punk most certainly is alive and well.

 

Exhibit A
Subhumans Cradle to the Grave 1983

 

Exhibit B
Civil Disobedience "In a Few Hours of Madness EP 1993

 

Exhibit C
A Global Threat Out In the Dark" 2002
Exhibit D
underground crust bands well into the future 2012

Exhibit E
and look who just came out with an album last year, Defiance Out of Order 2011

haha

For me post-punk always boiled down to anything that happened after the first wave of punk but somehow, sometimes loosely, still associated with it. So yeah, it is a continuous process. The term really doesn't mean much of anything, as it's often thrown at bands that don't associate themselves much with punk rock or anything that happened before it. Journalists, critics, almost always (naturally...it's almost unavoidable) have this need to compare anything in the now to whatever happened before it. Most find it difficult to describe Jimi without mentioning many of the blues artists that came before him (Buddy Guy, especially) even though, minor similarities aside, have different approaches to music. It works the same way in punk rock or virtually any other genre of music (I honestly don't even consider "punk" a genre these days...it's just rock to me. I guess it could be argued that it's a sub genre of rock...but The Pistols are easily comparable to Chuck Berry, again, even though the two were at the same time wildly different). In other words, it's something that doesn't really mean much of anything.

Were The Velvet Underground really proto-punk? Reality is, your first wave of punk musicians didn't seem to be inspired by them much...but, haha, a lot of their influence can be heard via a lot of "post-punk" bands.

Sonic Youth + Butthole Surfers can easily be described as "post-punk". So can Depeche Mode and New Order. It's all meaningless.

I realize ya still have bands that refer to themselves as punk. I don't think there is anything wrong with this at all...but basically none of them are or ever really were the bands that spring to my mind when I think "punk". I mean, technically Choking Victim and Nausea and all the stupid political crusty shit never really qualified as punk rock at all to me. Punk rock didn't originate as some political movement...people just had to add that nauseating twist to something was just fine without it. To others, it's the only thing that qualifies and the Ramones/Dead Boys..and I DESPISE when people say this..were nothing more than "just rock n roll bands". Most aren't too brushed up on their history either. Same kinda morons that will refer to The Stooges as "hippies". It's just whatever.

Yeah, punk and politics, for me, has always been such a silly concept. It's not much different than when the racists begin associating themselves with skinheads...all but changing everyone's perception of something that initally had NO racist intentions (history teaches us the original skins were really into ska and reggae...you know, traditionally "black" forms of music).

It's nearly impossible in some circles to discuss punk rock as an approach to music, or a historical concept, without someone feeling a need to throw in some political agenda. I always dug The Ramones and Johnny Thunders because they were NOT preachy...I hate Minor Threat and Fugazi solely because they are. Very few bands can get away with that sort of stuff...I feel very few should. A bunch of angry dudes screamin' preachy stuff into a microphone to other angry (and also typically preachy) folks in an audience never changed much of anything.

[evollove]

I understand your distaste for the preachy, but not all politics are preachy.

e.g.: The way the Ramones dressed and played was in itself a political statement. Further, look at the lyrics, which deal with feelings of boredom and disassociation from mainstream society. They are fun and goofy, and I'm not sure they had a programmed political agenda--they weren't Gang of Four--but the way they represented themselves as a band was a political gesture--obviously among other, perhaps more wonderful, things. Politics in one form or another are ubiquitous, so why not in music?

The book: I look forward to the entertainment this tome will bring me while I void my bowels.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by evollove

I understand your distaste for the preachy, but not all politics are preachy.

e.g.: The way the Ramones dressed and played was in itself a political statement. Further, look at the lyrics, which deal with feelings of boredom and disassociation from mainstream society. They are fun and goofy, and I'm not sure they had a programmed political agenda--they weren't Gang of Four--but the way they represented themselves as a band was a political gesture--obviously among other, perhaps more wonderful, things. Politics in one form or another are ubiquitous, so why not in music?

The book: I look forward to the entertainment this tome will bring me while I void my bowels.

I can dig that, but their songs weren't aimed at some sort of "message". The only agenda seemed about having fun and expressing what most disfranchised adolescents feel while doing it. Not the sort of stuff that's going to make too many feel uncomfortable listening to the actual music (which, again, came before any sort of message. Half their songs were just silly for sillies sake) 'cause they can't identify w/ whatever agenda.

Last thing I want to deal with is someone recommending me an album by a group of folks telling me how I should think or feel. How I should treat women, how I should or shouldn't vote, what types of foods I should or shouldn't eat...whatever. In terms of a live setting, it's usually even far worse. Even Bikini Kill (notorious for preachiness) got burned out on some of Ian Mackaye's antics in the early 90's.

Like I've said countless times...for me, music and art are best left as a means of escaping reality, not expressing it. Seldom a tool to aid me in identifying with it.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

this won't contribute much to the punk/politics discussion, but I personally think the Ramones are one of the most overrated bands ever. This doesn't really bother me though, and I'm aware of their inspiration and importance. I'm just saying they're beyond tedious once you've moved past the first record, in my opinion. Also, perhaps this is irrelevant, but I often think about the connection between personality and music. I wonder how much personality overrides the substance itself (if at all) at times, for certain individuals. I'm not insinuating anyone here is illustrating this, but I'm just curious about how much it would alter an individual's take on particular artists without their approach and/or "gimmick" in the artists' demeanor. Also keep in mind, it isn't associating personality with music that I'm criticizing. It's kind of silly and possibly a waste of time, but you see... the prospective readers are more than welcome to not give a single shit.

Yes, the Ramones pretty much rewrote the first three records over and over throughout most of their career. Their musicianship was limited. They found a gimmick, and they stuck with it. I just think they are a kickass band. They're fun. There were some bad vibes behid the scenes, but seldom did it result in miserable music and even when they did reference personal shit, it was so heavily veiled and silly most listeners would never notice. They aren't my favorite band, but they played a major role in writing the book that would become punk rock. They were basically a funny Stooges that pretty much limited themselves to power chords. Whatever.

And sure, I'm content in saying individual personality will effect the way one listens to music and what they are wanting out of it (it's possible I'm not understanding your question...). I'm quirky. I have no doubt that I'm neurotic. I can be loud and obnoxious, and I at times have the tendency to sometimes go weeks at a time mostly keeping to myself as far as my personal life is concerned. Also, I can be (as most here are well aware) very opinionated and argumentative. An aspect of myself that is natural to me, but also one I don't always enjoy. This is probably a good explanation as to why I tend to (usually..) stay away from political bands and (especially/ALWAYS...) those with any sort of religious agenda. Musically, I was beginning to dig Silver Mount Zion, but very quickly became exhausted of them lyrically. I don't give a fuck if someone is Jewish. I really don't give a fuck about listening to an artist express any sort of secular issues. Artists are usually a bit weird, anyway. Even Dylan (one of those often praised for his lyrics) was proven a fraud several times. I like my music quirky and nonsensical (weird jazz, noise, etc) or just straight ahead NO BULLSHIT rock n roll (Stooges, Dolls, Mudhoney, etc).

Lyrics are, and to me should be, the least important part of music. Some dipshits have to take it beyond that (Ian Mackaye) often going as far as get get preachy and shit between songs. The majority of these bands create music that has a difficult time standing on it's own without the actual lyrics (I mean FUCK, how could anyone really enjoy some bullshit like Agnostic Front?) If I was in a band, I wouldn't give a shit who my audience were or how they behaved at my shows (sans someone getting raped or something absurd). Hetero, homo, homophobic, womanizers, women issues sympathizers, I wouldn't give a shit as long as it didn't effect the show. Shit, they all bought a ticket. half the bands like that tend to have audiences that are too, though. Whatever. Shit just doesn't and wouldn't ever work for me.

I remember hearing about this utter shit band (Earth Crisis) playing Atlanta several years back. Their fans were lame enough to have apparently beat the shit out of a couple guys I know for lighting up cigarettes. Cool beans. Not really.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

Sure, I understand. Ramones are alright and admittedly fun to listen to occasionally, but nothing more for me. I'd definitely rather listen to the Wipers which is possibly my favorite band, at least in a top 5 somewhere. Youth of America is my favorite record I've ever listened to... it's a bit shorter than ITR? and Over the Edge but I personally thought those could've left a few tracks out to make them much more effective. I know many wouldn't agree with that, but I think Youth of America is the perfect culmination of sound from them. I don't think I agree entirely with "preachy" being a detrimental thing to music though. Lyrics can often allude to something that individual listeners interpret as a variety of things/"messages". It's something that really depends for me, and my main point in my initial post is merely about how a gimmick or specific approach can demonstrate a perihperal outer shell for what is most vital, which is the music. I guess I've just never understood the fascination, but I suppose I'm alright with it. I hate to sound sanctimonious as well but most of my peers are usually more decisive at first glance, consuming only what the material seemingly is, as opposed to (again, this probably isn't even necessary most of the time) attempting to see it for what it is and gain an understanding of it through personal observation.

I haven't slept in a long time and I'm done, y'know, rambling.

I just think, in most cases, a specified message (in the way of lyrics, especially) often compromises the integrity of the actual music.