Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skuj
But why can't a band change / grow / morph into a different beast? Beatles went from I Want To Hold Your Hand to I Am The Walrus. Our beloved Sonic Youth did albums in the 2000s which were very different from the albums of the 1980s. Should Bob Dylan call himself Zimmerman now? His brand of bluesy stuff these last few albums is a very different thing from his 60s epics.
I mean, we are talking about 20-30 fuckin years spread here, between much of the past music that some are mentioning in this thread and now. How could they NOT change? Gira has a kid now, right? He's an old Dad like me, hahaha. That fuckin changes your outlook on life.
I just do not understand how calling this Swans (with a few of the same dudes as 20 years ago) does injustice to both eras.
|
skuj go listen to those early records. just do it, come back here, read what you've written and then punch yrself in the balls.
as a few of us have said (I think...), the vitriolic element of swans wasn't so much an element per se as it was the very essence of swans itself. regardless of the form the music took it remained intact, through grinding no wave, neofolk, dark rock, whatever the fuck you want to call post-children of god; gira retained in all his music a fury, an unbridled hatred for mankind and the world with no inkling of hope, no light to offset the crushing blackness. the new records temper it with a sense of optimism, a sort of "hey the world suxxxx bad but we can overcome it together hippy dippy suck me off", itself a decidedly modern (and depressing) school of thought, representing a mentality that is totally at odds with the initial incarnation of the band. in that, in my mind and indeed those of a lot of people with whom I've spoken, it negates the foundational qualities of the band and thereby means it's NOT SWANS, it's angels of light + drone rock.