[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>
>X-Sender: knotte\!/tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu
>To: cklutz\!/buffnet.net
>Subject: Re: uptown sloan, 
>
>The definitive distinction between Sloan and the Beatles:
>
>Ahem...
>
>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 
>style.
>
>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.
>