[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: uptown sloan,
>>From tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu!umich.edu!knotte Wed May 8 00:00:25 1996
>Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 00:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Evan Thomas Knott <knotte\!/umich.edu>
>Subject: Re: uptown sloan,
>The definitive distinction between Sloan and the Beatles:
>Okay, you see, it seems that these comparisons (recent) to the Beatles
>are in light of the new Sloan sound, which I haven't actually heard yet.
>I'm sure the new sound is reminiscent of some era of Beatles material.
>However, what good is comparing a band based on their sound in a certain
>time period. Both Sloan and Beatles have changed their styles
>dramatically. I wouldn't exactly say Smeared is very beatlesesque, it
>surely doesn't sound much like Sgt. Pepper to me. But this is just sound
>Okay, I suppose you could say their charismatical music qualities are
>similar to the extent that both bands have four male members, are
>overwhelmingly popular in among there fan base, and all at one time or
>another had moppy hair. That's it. The Beatles went totally
>granola/hippie/druggie bullshit, Sloan focuses on making damn good music
>with a raw, sensible pop sound without all of these politics involved.
>They don't take all the glamour and etc. very seriously, the beatles were
>career musicians, money machines, and they still are.
>To compare Sloanwith the beatles is like saying My Bloody Valentine (if
>any of you are familiar with the band) are like the Cramps because for
>two years, 1984-1986 they sounded like the cramps sort of. That's hardly
>the case today.
>To fully answer your question, I couldn't really put it into words, this
>is a shaddy attempt at doing so. it's just a feeling, it's in the innards.