"Stiff was about as indie as Victory or whatever"

err...exactly. Victory may suck but it is an indie (like stiff)

Stiff was about as indie as Victory or whatever.

Punk did not start as an inherently underground thing, and it never will be. In the 80's, though, record companies smartened up and that's when the big change happened.

For whoever said that indie labels weren't a viable option in '77: Stiff.

"David Byrne's new solo stuff owns everything in your collection."

Joke? What exactly makes it listenable besides the "weirdo points" you rack up for actually claiming to like fucking David Byrne. Seriously, are you deaf?

And folk-punk has been around and okay to perform for a long time. Seriously, get a dayjob.

-Will

The point is, how can they apply NOW when they didn't apply then. The point of doing any work, whether it be artistic or otherwise is to support yourself.

I love it when kids talk about The Clash like they were there.

I'm not saying I was, but hey, really. "The Clash were sellouts"? You kids really need help if you think your sub-Gilman Street ethics applied back then.

Posted by sfbarker on 2006-06-02 10:52:33
My Score:

Big Willy Marionvic or whatever the hell, you're missing the point completely. The point was, don't condemn the new acts for doing the same thing the old acts did. I love the Sex Pistols...I don't like the Clash just because I find their music to be boring, but that's just me. These bands did nothing wrong by signing to a major label, they were trying to make some money doing what they love.

And you can talk shit about Gabel's first stuff giving older people like me restored hope, but you know what? It did give us a bit of hope. If it pisses you off, good for you...but different things have different effects on different people. Like I said in my post, there is no right or wrong answer.

As a kid, you have this burning desire for everything to be black and white...unfortunately, the world is mostly a gray area. Sorry.

In my case, bandmates grew up and left the scene because they were past it. I lost my bands, etc. It didn't seem entirely viable to be a dude with an acoustic playing at punk shows because kids were almost violent against it. Here in Texas people used to make fun of the dude from Gals Panic when he started doing solo shows. Kids are fickle. Gabel made it okay to bring a folky vibe to the music NOW. Yes, I'm aware people did it then, but he made it okay NOW.

Also, as far as indie not being an option back in the day, look at 2 cornerstones to "the scene", The Subhumans and Crass, they were completely DIY in the same period.

Final points, the Clash sold out just as much as Against Me has/will. David Byrne's new solo stuff owns everything in your collection. The Dresden Dolls are doing something innovative for the time and the early Against Me shows have me totally romanticized...the same way my wife does. I loved that feeling of seeing the music become more about being relayed than trying to create a band. Sure, Gabel made a band, those dudes threw in their 2 cents and the sound has changed.

While I believe that autographs are ridiculous, it does mean a lot to the young kids. They haven't been involved in punk rock long enough to realize that it strives to break down the barriers between performer and audience.

As an alternative, bands could do what Ian MacKaye does. When a kid asks for his autograph, he has the kid sign his autograph book as well.

Remember that when the Clash were around, independent labels were not a viable alternative to the majors. There really was no other choice. That has all changed now and bands can make a living from their music while still working with independent labels.

And if you think that Tom Gabel did more for punk rock than the Clash, you must have your head up your ass. I'll give you one example. The Clash played a show in the Bay Area and donated all the proceeds, $5000, to a local youth organization to help educate kids and provide an outlet for their creativity. When Against Me does anything like that, you'll have some ground to stand on.

I actually agreed with Will. That SFbarker guy is a dickass.

"Autographs are absolutely for rockstars, but think about it for a second. If you're Joe Punkrocker and some kid comes to you about an autograph, are you seriously going to tell him no and try to explain to him why he shouldn't want one?"

I'm not blaming the band at all, I'm just saying that I'm disappointed in the fans for failing to realize the inherent hypocrisy in what they're doing. But oh well, I guess that's just how Against Me fans are these days. I got a real kick out of a guy at the last show, who was screaming the words to every song, but in between songs was talking about all the "faggots" at the show. People suck.

Against Me is boring.

"That you don't need a facade to do something meaningful. What they do now is a moot point, it's what they were that matters and mattered most."

So basically you're jocking them for the same reason you're trying to tear apart the Clash.

And don't pull that "they renewed dreams for a lot of us." I was there when they were playing basements. Yeah, it was cool, but you're trying to romanticsize a period that was really not that great (like all people who try to retrofy and judge bands by idiot standards). Against Me! were just one of many good DIY bands. They alone did not have a huge effect on anything. Hell, folk-punk existed before them and will continue to go on regardless. I remember. It was just, you know, 5 years ago.

If we're going to judge artists in retrospect, I think I'll definitely take the Clash's 4 great albums over Against Me's one.

holy shit i actually agree with BSD. except that i love Against Me! and couldn't really give a shit about them selling out. yeah they sold out. i would've too.

The idea of anyone criticsizing the Clash and first wave punk in general for "trendhopping" while jocking a tired act like Against Me is utterly hilarious. And it would have been hilarious back when Tom Gabel or whoever had an ounce of credibility. Shit, I'm pretty sure he would think so, too.

The Clash were "trend-hopping" when they started integrating reggae into their music? Most ignorant thought ever. They were doing the punk-reggae thing on their first album, in 1977, way before ska-punk took off with the Specials and that wave.

And the Buzzcocks were "major label whores?"

Did you ever stop to think that back in 1977, before the DIY underground, being on an "indie" label meant that, along with never seeing any royalties, you'd be doomed to obscurity. I'd much rather The Buzzcocks were on a major label so that they'd stay in print and be popular enough to be one of my (and many others') "gateway" bands. The Sex Pistols were "sucking the devil's cock" longer than Against Me? They had formed and pretty much broken up in the timespan that Against Me has signed to Fat Wreck and then jumped to Sire.

You are refusing art for something it can't help, really. You really don't like any music just because of the lable it's on? I find that crappy music coincides with majors, but I'll admit that I think the Hives are awesome.

Seriously, some of you crust kids are so fucking ignorant. Yeah, get up on your high horse and dismiss the fucking Clash as "major label whores"... What an utter joke. What a skewed, truly dull way to look at music. "NOTHING THAT'S NOT NEW HAS ANY INTEGRITY OR MEANING."

Not even Against Me's one good album can match anything the Clash ever did in their prime (which does not include Combat Rock). It's not because Against Me are more modern than the Clash- they simply don't have the songwriting talent.

All Tom "did for the underground" is what most modern punk bands "do for the underground"- use it when it's needed, then completely dismiss and forget about it.

The Talking Heads "pushed the boundaries of music" no more than any of the bands you called "skilless." They were contemporaries and friends of all of those bands, and definitely respected them. Back in 77, playing like the Ramones, Clash, Pistols, etc. was not just a fashion statement.

And David Byrne was a fucking yuppie prick. Yeah, go listen to some of his pretentious "tribal music" and jizz over how unique it is. I'll be nodding off.

Punk was an ideal? Yeah, sure. The ideal was that kids could make music and not have to worry about old, pretentious jerks like you trying to ruin everything. Please, never, ever go to a show.

Autographs are absolutely for rockstars, but think about it for a second. If you're Joe Punkrocker and some kid comes to you about an autograph, are you seriously going to tell him no and try to explain to him why he shouldn't want one?

"Listen to the Talking Heads, Uncle Tupelo, even now, The Dresden Dolls...people who have "punk" attached to their name. It's about pushing the envelope and doing something worthwhile and different...not bad clothes, bad hair, bad attitude and skillless music."

are you trying to say what the Dresden Dolls are doing is new? pushing the envelop? don't get me wrong, i like them, i like them alot. it is a bit different, but its nothing new, not at all. its just not being done alot. maybe i'm looking at this with too narrow a point of view on whats "new" or not, but really come on.

and sorry i don't know how to do italics. i'm just not savvy like you all.

"I know this is off subject but which Fugazi cd and Earth Crisis cd should I buy first...im tryin to get in2 them both..."

For Fugazi get "End Hits"

Posted by Godfather on 2006-05-31 20:24:19
My Score:

sup my score is for the reviewer, aka superdude!

I know this is off subject but which Fugazi cd and Earth Crisis cd should I buy first...im tryin to get in2 them both...

Jesus, people on this site are fucking clueless.

The guy freaking out over people asking AM! to sign stuff is hilarious though. "OMG!11 PEEPUL AKCHUALLY WANT A SUVENIR OV SUMFINK!!1111 SELLOUT NOT PUNXX!111".

Too cute.

Their new stuff is a step towards disco and older pop rock...they aren't moving towards a more commercially viable sound.

disco and older pop rock have already proven to be commercially viable.

but im glad to see comments like this, when i checked the site last night i was wondering if folks were having trouble connecting to it, b/c of the auspicious lack of fanboy comments.

Oh man, you're rich...it's not a "fanboy" thing at all. That's so simple to say. If you like something and defend it, you're a "fanboy".

Also, disco and "modern" pop rock haven't been viable in 30 years...in the 40s, folk was HUGE, so in that regard, Gabel sold out from square one.

There is no definitive right or wrong answer to this. If you don't like it, fine, move on and go listen to RKL or some other generic band from that place in time. Punk rock was never a genre when it was brought about, it was an ideal of making change in music.

Listen to the Talking Heads, Uncle Tupelo, even now, The Dresden Dolls...people who have "punk" attached to their name. It's about pushing the envelope and doing something worthwhile and different...not bad clothes, bad hair, bad attitude and skillless music.

Posted by sfbarker on 2006-05-31 16:42:06
My Score:

Look, I've had lots of people sign CDs and pictures I've taken in my life. It's not so much because they're famous or anything, it's because I care about what they do and it's a good validation for them. You care so much about their work you want to them to know and sign off on it. It may seem silly, but it's a good way to break the ice and talk to be people for a while. Signing things is a great way to say "Thank you" to your fans and they can see your gratitude when they put in the CD. I think it's a great practice and another way to bring people in the scene closer.

Their new stuff is a step towards disco and older pop rock...they aren't moving towards a more commercially viable sound.

disco and older pop rock have already proven to be commercially viable.

but im glad to see comments like this, when i checked the site last night i was wondering if folks were having trouble connecting to it, b/c of the auspicious lack of fanboy comments.

"Why? Because AM! is probably their favorite band and they're excited to see them? They're fucking kids man, let 'em be."

By kids, I meant they were like 18 years old, old enough to "get it". And I apologize for the typo, I meant to say that autographs are for rock stars.

By the way, sfbarker, I feel the same way you do, you just articulated it much much better that I ever could.

Posted by sfbarker on 2006-05-31 16:27:06
My Score:

Oh man, I just read some dipshit's comment on The Clash...

Dude, Tom Gabel and ultimately Against Me stayed more true to the "punk ethos" you children have created more than the Clash EVER did.

The Clash were middle class kids in England who jumped on punk rock after seeing the Pistols and coat-tailed their ass to some notoriety...then became a half-assed new wave/reggae band to cash in over here in the US.

Sure, they wrote some good songs and they were really idealistic because they were afforded the lifestyle to dream, not to have to come up from the gutter to do something.

Tom Gabel toured all over ALONE for years playing his songs and playing wherever he could. He didn't piggyback the "next big trend" to reach notoriety. He didn't playing pop punk and tour with Good Charlotte or Blink-182 to cash in, which is basically what the Clash did.

Gabel did a lot of stuff for years. And while you're sitting in your dorm room you financial aid is paying for or in the basement of your mommy's house with your luxury of having no REAL worries, enjoy casting the stones at someone trying to make a living through their art. When the Clash started trying to become a reggae/new wave band, people revered it as brilliant (though they were just following a trend).

Tom Gabel did more for the scene than you kids will ever know. A lot of older people like me gave up on it because of little back biters like you kids who shit talk anyone who excels in the industry. He set the groundwork, gave the ideals. I'm an adult now, so I have a job that allows me to give away my band's CDs and stuff. We can play wherever and if we get any money, it goes only to music related expenses. I can keep my music completely my own, but not every musician can. They can sign things keeping the label out of their creative process, but ultimately, you have labels doing shit like this and creating remixes.

The point is, Tom Gabel has done more for keeping some credibility in punk rock than the Clash did. If everyone followed their lead, punk rock would be dudes in dreadlocks playing reggae music...oh wait, that happened in the early 90s...

Against Me! renewed dreams for a lot of us. They restored hope, no matter what they do now, they brought back the idea that creating music and just playing for your peers is viable. That you don't need a facade to do something meaningful. What they do now is a moot point, it's what they were that matters and mattered most.

Also, the fact that they are progressing is good. Their new stuff is a step towards disco and older pop rock...they aren't moving towards a more commercially viable sound. So get over yourselves and the nut riding of major label whores like The Clash, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, The Buzzcocks, etc, etc, etc...they all sucked the devil's dick a lot longer than any band today has. Know your heroes' history before you make them into Gods...

"Remixes are for rock stars, fuckhead. I saw some annoying fucking kids getting Tom and Andrew to sign shit at the last show I went to, and it made me want to fucking puke."

Why? Because AM! is probably their favorite band and they're excited to see them? They're fucking kids man, let 'em be.

Posted by sfbarker on 2006-05-31 15:33:07
My Score:

This was probably one of the weakest songs on the album. If Condoleeza wasn't some current target in the mainstream, no one would care about this song, it's boring, the music is alright...it's probably the worst song on the album...and I like the album...but I can confess to skipping this song more than once.

"But hey, at least this time around the band deided to throw some artwork onto the album."

this isn't an album.

I havent heard this like almost everyone else here, and I hate it too.

Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 12:05 AM (EDT)
My Score:

incidentally, if you watch the last few beastie boys videos with the yeti character with the Captions on (ITS A HABIT, DONT ASK), there is text, dialogue, and captions that pop up when no one is speaking, for quite a long time.

wyzo

I don't think I can write the NMDS review, I'm illiterate.

Horrible review for the sole reasons that I don't think he knows the purpose of a remix as keeping gabel's voice and the spirit of the song would have meant for all intents keeping the song pretty much the same, or god forbid, making it a techno dance shitpile, and 2, the "singles" as he put it for Eternal cowboy were all recorded during the same sessions (depending on how he meant two 'new' versions). And not all of the singles were acoustic reworkings, some of them had electric versions of acoustic songs.

however, why anyone would buy these i dont know.
wyzo

What a boring band.

"I love it. Also, my copy is signed by Warren, Tom, Jordan the Merch Girl and John the Roadie."

Remixes are for rock stars, fuckhead. I saw some annoying fucking kids getting Tom and Andrew to sign shit at the last show I went to, and it made me want to fucking puke.

Yeah Dir where is the New Mexican Disaster Squad review? I figured someone would have done that by now.

"at the most the next jawbreaker"
-feeding5000

...yet you're writing them off? you are the stupidest motherfucker on this site, do you post comments in news articles?

also, the video for this is horrific

great band but what a waste of a release. This sounds like something AM! want rather than what Fat want to release.

has there ever been a good remix of a punk song? genuine question cos i've never heard a good one

Steak Mtn artwork is cool.

"We signed to a major to get the message out" is not an excuse. Neither is "What's better, working a menial job to make ends meet, or to make a carrer out of music." No offense, but Against Me! is just another flash-in-the-pan pop-punk band. They are not the next Clash. At the most, the next Jawbreaker.

Anonymous wrote
"everyone in the their band and crew is a a dick now. You'd think with all that money they'd be happy."

This guy is full of shit. I chatted with them after the last Birmingham show on the Fat tour and drank with the roadie for hours. They couldn't have been cooler and you are a complete douche. Also, much props to them for playing an all ages show at a tiny venue in Birmingham, AL.

Yes and they are also producers. What they do is create the beats themselves either by instruments or smaples then they get mix master mike to "take it to the next level" (from the video on the making of TT5B).

While they play their own instruments live, they don’t make the beats for their albums.

Dude, 'm not sure where you're getting your info, but the Beastie Boys DO make their own beats.

anyone notice.......
Lagwagon-Hoss cowboy farmer guy on the front:violins
then came out
Blink 182 Dude Ranch bull on a farm:dammit
Bad Astronaut-off the wagon
then blink went experimental(they announcec cuz of b a too)
then rip off off the wagon with i miss u....jus a thought but uhh this against me does kinda blow

Agreed...merch girl= total bitch...the roadie is Ok...he did the Larry Arms and Loved Ones mini tour as well.

everyone in the their band and crew is a a dick now. You'd think with all that money they'd be happy.

Yeah, I told her I wanted a shirt and she gave me a completely different one. I was too drunk to notice at the show, but the next morning, I was pissed.

the merch girl is a bitch.

omg minez iz signed by tom!>???!?!olol!!!

I agree that these boys suck

Posted by sxenester on 2006-05-30 12:21:39
My Score:

I love it. Also, my copy is signed by Warren, Tom, Jordan the Merch Girl and John the Roadie.

I almost picked this up for $4.99. I decided not to b/c I was very disappointed with the first remix.

i don't think any rock band should have a remix.

Remixes are stupid. I've never understood their purpose other than to take one well known song and attach some other well known artists name to it in order to suck even more money out of idiots and idiot collectors.

Only two stars? Electroremixes.com gave this an 8/10!

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 at 9:52 AM (EDT)
My Score:

the weird thing is Against Me! usually releases such strong non-full length material.

I'm not afarid to say that this band is fuckin'horrible!
Terrible vocals!

I don't know how people can hate on the original version of this song. I loved it. But what was with those little beeping noises in after the chourses?

2 stars for an against me piece of work? I still say most over rated band in music right now,.

Posted by kingofpain on 2006-05-30 04:42:49
My Score:

The remix was pretty horrible. Really disappointing for me, since I love Against Me! and The Beastie Boys.

I dont know, I think it would be neat for them to release a remix of every song off the newest album. Or atleast a Boards of Canada remix. Thats all I ask.

if the next against me album doesnt have a hint of Crime or Reinventing Axel Rose flare or feeling to it i think they might just lose another long time fan

Posted by ___waltz on 2006-05-30 02:23:02
My Score:

I dunno, I liked it more than I liked the 'Don't Lose Touch' remix. Still not amazing.

This looks bad, were's the New Mexican Disaster Squad review?

Posted by ozmanx on 2006-05-30 01:19:34
My Score:

Score is for the artwork.

This was my least favorite song from SFAFC anyway.

Fucking Remixes?!? What a bunch of sellouts.

Adrock from the Beastie Boys?

yeah pretty much my only thought when i heard this was WTF