in your opinion what is the most radical music ever made ?

2

  Comments


  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    Most radical? Surf Punks of course...


  • Since I'm from Holland I gotta represent...

    Hardcore or Gabber music is pretty radical I believe Check it out and enjoy:






  • volumenvolumen 2,529 Posts
    bassie said:
    Also, Iggy and The Stooges.

    I can still play Fun House outtakes and people will ask me if it's devil music.

  • Whatever it is, it must have been made in Japan. All that improv shit, all that weirdness: Otomo Yoshihide, The Gerogerigegege, Les Rallizes D??nud??s, Yoko Ono, Keiji Haino, Melt-Banana, the Onkyo scene, the avant prog like Ground Zero, all the ultra absorbed songwriters, even Jpop. Seriously, what does even compare?

  • ppadilhappadilha 2,074 Posts
    Nabozo said:
    Whatever it is, it must have been made in Japan. All that improv shit, all that weirdness: Otomo Yoshihide, The Gerogerigegege, Les Rallizes D??nud??s, Yoko Ono, Keiji Haino, Melt-Banana, the Onkyo scene, the avant prog like Ground Zero, all the ultra absorbed songwriters, even Jpop. Seriously, what does even compare?

    maybe that shit just sounds radical to western ears, like Ethiopian music or anything else done on quarter-tone scale. To the japanese it probably sounds perfectly normal. They probably just shrugged when they first heard Melt-Banana.

  • OkemOkem 4,617 Posts
    There are pieces written for the Japanese bamboo flute that only the 'great masters' have access to, some can only be played to the Emperor and others have no actual musical element to them at all. That's pretty radical I guess.

  • JimsterJimster Twilight Zone/ Al Capone/ Rolling Stone/ Eva Perón 6,433 Posts
    Okem said:
    There are pieces written for the Japanese bamboo flute that only the 'great masters' have access to, some can only be played to the Emperor and others have no actual musical element to them at all. That's pretty radical I guess.

    Man will see that and raise you...
    According to Max Heindel's Rosicrucian writings, the heavenly "music of the spheres" is heard in the Region of Concrete Thought, the lower region of the mental plane, which is an ocean of harmony.

    I once heard someone play a tape of some classical piece, where all the sounds were made by wind moving at different speeds, combining to make harmony. I mean, like, this is how wind instruments work, but these were actual recordings of winds whistling through snow-capped, purple-headed :ayo: mountains and shit, and the harmonies were all mystical to me.

    I was probably very drunk, doe. Certainly too drunk to remember the details, which has irritated me for some time.

  • OkemOkem 4,617 Posts
    J i m s t e r said:
    Okem said:
    There are pieces written for the Japanese bamboo flute that only the 'great masters' have access to, some can only be played to the Emperor and others have no actual musical element to them at all. That's pretty radical I guess.

    Man will see that and raise you...
    According to Max Heindel's Rosicrucian writings, the heavenly "music of the spheres" is heard in the Region of Concrete Thought, the lower region of the mental plane, which is an ocean of harmony.

    I once heard someone play a tape of some classical piece, where all the sounds were made by wind moving at different speeds, combining to make harmony. I mean, like, this is how wind instruments work, but these were actual recordings of winds whistling through snow-capped, purple-headed :ayo: mountains and shit, and the harmonies were all mystical to me.

    I was probably very drunk, doe. Certainly too drunk to remember the details, which has irritated me for some time.
    If you go on Waxiderpy you'll probably find several wind themed records. I know this one is kinda sweated.

    Sanddunes are known to somehow naturally emit some crazy noises, apparently there is one in California that emits a drone in C and one in Morocco that's G sharp. I don't think they've released an album yet tho.


  • FrankFrank 2,403 Posts
    "radical" is always subjective of course. It depends on the listeners own, personal listening habits, taste and exposure to music. My examples would probably more accurately be labeled as "stuff I heard and thought -this shit is radical -and proceeded to buy the record". Totally subjective. Some of my friends back in the 80s were listening to Japanese noise and Brit noise but this stuff to me sounded more academic than radical. The Stooges might be the one band I listened to most often over the past 20 years, Funhouse still gets a spin almost every single week but I heard them first in the early 80s when I also listened to early Birthday Party and various NYC No Wave acts and next to this stuff, the Stooges to me of course sounded kick-ass and amazing but not exactly "radical" although I'm sure this word would have fit perfectly back when their records first came out.

  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts
    Frank said:
    Stooges - "radical" although I'm sure this word would have fit perfectly back when their records first came out.

    And how it was meant. How I approached the question.

  • asstroasstro 1,753 Posts
    cai said:
    The Shaggs

    Came just to post the same thing. The thing that is so radical about The Shaggs is that to the band there was absolutely nothing radical about what they were doing. Listen to the "structure" of these songs and to most people it sounds like three people playing three different songs at the same time, but to them it made total sense. The engineer who recorded them said that they stopped takes several times because someone made a "mistake", but no one outside of the three sisters could tell what was on purpose and what wasn't. They weren't trying to be weird, or to piss people off, or make noise, they were just playing music the way they heard it, and that is pretty radical.




  • The Shaggs are awesome outsider pop but that story is too old and rehashed. And there's a ton of outsider stuff.








  • FrankFrank 2,403 Posts
    bassie said:
    Frank said:
    Stooges - "radical" although I'm sure this word would have fit perfectly back when their records first came out.

    And how it was meant. How I approached the question.

    And that's also how I understood it. Same goes for Rich's examples. I was more talking about what I thought was "radical" at the time that I heard it which of course is subjective, more or less irrelevant and probably not in the sense that this thread was meant.

    Can you imagine going to record store as a teenager, picking up Funhouse right when it came out and hearing it in the true context of its time... I can't even imagine but that would probably fuck up your head for good.

  • Frank said:
    Can you imagine going to record store as a teenager, picking up Funhouse right when it came out and hearing it in the true context of its time... I can't even imagine but that would probably fuck up your head for good.

    I had pretty much this experience with this album and Raw Power in '74 when I was 12.

    My friend lived in a full blown hippy house, which was unheard of in my neck of the woods at that point. Hippies fornicating in bed rooms at all hours, a 10 ft Boa living loose in the house etc. His folks had some involvement in the Acid Tests, or so I was told. One of the first nights I ever smoked pot (perhaps the first) was there, with his folks. I remember that the bong was filled with red wine and crushed ice and we listened to Funhouse and Raw Power and Master Of Reality. I couldn't really process what I was hearing, but my 12 year old mind was definitely shattered...



  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts
    I tried to find some tv footage on YouTube that I saw years ago, but had no luck.
    I remember it as b&w film of Iggy and The Stooges performing for a studio audience of teens, sitting on the floor and low boxes. Iggy is in silver pants, no shirt and he gets right in there and is jumping around and singing right in the faces of this milkfed wholesome looking bunch.
    Between the music and performance, I am sure it was a life-changing, "what is happening here and am I getting out alive?" experience for that audience.
    It really put them into context for me.

  • FrankFrank 2,403 Posts
    bassie said:
    I tried to find some tv footage on YouTube that I saw years ago, but had no luck.
    I remember it as b&w film of Iggy and The Stooges performing for a studio audience of teens, sitting on the floor and low boxes. Iggy is in silver pants, no shirt and he gets right in there and is jumping around and singing right in the faces of this milkfed wholesome looking bunch.
    Between the music and performance, I am sure it was a life-changing, "what is happening here and am I getting out alive?" experience for that audience.
    It really put them into context for me.

    Are you sure this was tv footage? I remember photographs or slides showing exactly that scenario surfacing a few years back. I think they were posted or linked to on Waxidermy.

  • The Black Dice's music is wildly abrasive to my ears.

  • Horseleech said:
    Frank said:
    Can you imagine going to record store as a teenager, picking up Funhouse right when it came out and hearing it in the true context of its time... I can't even imagine but that would probably fuck up your head for good.

    I had pretty much this experience with this album and Raw Power in '74 when I was 12.

    My friend lived in a full blown hippy house, which was unheard of in my neck of the woods at that point. Hippies fornicating in bed rooms at all hours, a 10 ft Boa living loose in the house etc. His folks had some involvement in the Acid Tests, or so I was told. One of the first nights I ever smoked pot (perhaps the first) was there, with his folks. I remember that the bong was filled with red wine and crushed ice and we listened to Funhouse and Raw Power and Master Of Reality. I couldn't really process what I was hearing, but my 12 year old mind was definitely shattered...

    Edit: Oops, misread earlier posts. Stupidity.

    But, yeah. The Stooges were mindblowing, incredible shit. The sound of industry meets rock.

    Still seems radical.

  • jamesjames chicago 1,863 Posts
    Frank said:
    bassie said:
    I tried to find some tv footage on YouTube that I saw years ago, but had no luck.
    I remember it as b&w film of Iggy and The Stooges performing for a studio audience of teens, sitting on the floor and low boxes. Iggy is in silver pants, no shirt and he gets right in there and is jumping around and singing right in the faces of this milkfed wholesome looking bunch.
    Between the music and performance, I am sure it was a life-changing, "what is happening here and am I getting out alive?" experience for that audience.
    It really put them into context for me.

    Are you sure this was tv footage? I remember photographs or slides showing exactly that scenario surfacing a few years back. I think they were posted or linked to on Waxidermy.
    Yeah, that sounds like maybe that Farmington show. At a fucking high school no less. Can you imagine that shit?

    Anyway, as far as "radical," the first things that came to my mind were Jimi Hendrix and Suicide.

    Both were hugely sonically innovative when they came out, and while both were influential to greater or lesser extents, I don't think the work of either ever really got absorbed, ever got fully digested and metabolized into other styles or aesthetics to such a degree that their essence has ever truly been rendered any more accessible or understandable or extendable.

    The fact that they've both remained fundamentally inexplicable and irreducible despite decades of their work being vivisected and pinned open like an animal on a board certainly fits my definition.

  • gareth said:
    Horseleech said:
    Frank said:
    Can you imagine going to record store as a teenager, picking up Funhouse right when it came out and hearing it in the true context of its time... I can't even imagine but that would probably fuck up your head for good.

    I had pretty much this experience with this album and Raw Power in '74 when I was 12.

    My friend lived in a full blown hippy house, which was unheard of in my neck of the woods at that point. Hippies fornicating in bed rooms at all hours, a 10 ft Boa living loose in the house etc. His folks had some involvement in the Acid Tests, or so I was told. One of the first nights I ever smoked pot (perhaps the first) was there, with his folks. I remember that the bong was filled with red wine and crushed ice and we listened to Funhouse and Raw Power and Master Of Reality. I couldn't really process what I was hearing, but my 12 year old mind was definitely shattered...

    Edit: Oops, misread earlier posts. Stupidity.

    But, yeah. The Stooges were mindblowing, incredible shit. The sound of industry meets rock.

    Still seems radical.

    Fun House was free jazz being injected into rock. It still sounds fresh and innovative to me.

    Lester Bangs wrote that after his first listen or two he thought Fun House was one of the worst records of the year and that the Stooges sucked. The first couple of times he listened to it through headphones. Then some friends came over and demanded to hear it, and he played it loud and in the open air and started to get it, and then started playing it constantly.

    Like it deserves.

  • james said:

    Anyway, as far as "radical," the first things that came to my mind were Jimi Hendrix and Suicide.

    Both were hugely sonically innovative when they came out, and while both were influential to greater or lesser extents, I don't think the work of either ever really got absorbed, ever got fully digested and metabolized into other styles or aesthetics to such a degree that their essence has ever truly been rendered any more accessible or understandable or extendable.

    I saw Suicide open for the Cars in Providence in 1980 and they were not appreciated by most of the audience. They did an awesome "Dream Baby Dream" that I'll never forget.

    But I don't think they were any further away from the mainstream than Pere Ubu or the Residents were - to name two other bands I heard for the first time during that time period.

  • jamesjames chicago 1,863 Posts
    LazarusOblong said:
    james said:

    Anyway, as far as "radical," the first things that came to my mind were Jimi Hendrix and Suicide.

    Both were hugely sonically innovative when they came out, and while both were influential to greater or lesser extents, I don't think the work of either ever really got absorbed, ever got fully digested and metabolized into other styles or aesthetics to such a degree that their essence has ever truly been rendered any more accessible or understandable or extendable.

    I saw Suicide open for the Cars in Providence in 1980 and they were not appreciated by most of the audience. They did an awesome "Dream Baby Dream" that I'll never forget.

    But I don't think they were any further away from the mainstream than Pere Ubu or the Residents were - to name two other bands I heard for the first time during that time period.
    I think I know what you mean, but I guess part of my conception of radicalism is the ability to be fully visible and yet still somehow fundamentally inaccessible. Suicide gets namechecked a lot, and I remember back in the 90s reading about them in, like, Details and shit, and Jimi Hendrix is, of course, you know, Jimi Fucking Hendrix; but even so, you listen to the Red Star record or Electric Ladyland, and it sounds like the diamond is still in the mine--the feeling that as much as has been extracted, we still haven't gotten at thee thing. They've retained that elusive quality.

    The Residents and Pere Ubu have, to me, been a little diluted by what I've heard since. To put it over-simply, they both sound a lot less weird to me than they used to (and I spent my formative years around Cleveland, so that hurts to say). But even if they still sounded just as weird as they used to, my feeling is that I'd have a hard time seeing them as similarly radical, due largely to the fact that their music hasn't had to endure the kind of consciousness/attention that Suicide or Hendrix has. The heebie-jeebies I still get from hearing "Non-Alignment Pact" don't seem as radical as the ones I still get from hearing "Foxy Lady."

    Speaking broadly, I think it's easier for obscure music to feel fresh.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    vintageinfants said:

    This is some funny shit

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    The problem with this question is that many times "radical" music is ahead of it's time....when time catches up it doesn't sound so radical anymore.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    The problem with this question is that many times "radical" music is ahead of it's time....when time catches up it doesn't sound so radical anymore.

    But arent there clear music Paradigm Shifts that most folks can agree are the genre changers or genre starters?

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    batmon said:
    Rockadelic said:
    The problem with this question is that many times "radical" music is ahead of it's time....when time catches up it doesn't sound so radical anymore.

    But arent there clear music Paradigm Shifts that most folks can agree are the genre changers or genre starters?

    Sure....but do they still sound radical 30 years later?

    I'm old enough to have heard many of these genre starters/changers that were radical at the time, but very little of it sounds radical today.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,518 Posts
    batmon said:

    But arent there clear music Paradigm Shifts that most folks can agree are the genre changers or genre starters?

    I think that would make a great a thread.

  • batmonbatmon 27,574 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    batmon said:
    Rockadelic said:
    The problem with this question is that many times "radical" music is ahead of it's time....when time catches up it doesn't sound so radical anymore.

    But arent there clear music Paradigm Shifts that most folks can agree are the genre changers or genre starters?

    Sure....but do they still sound radical 30 years later?

    I'm old enough to have heard many of these genre starters/changers that were radical at the time, but very little of it sounds radical today.

    Should that decrease its impact on music though? Just because it ubiquitous by now?

    Does radical have to be an untouchable/unreachable artform, like how Jimi's shit is still in its own galaxy in 2013, yet cloned by many?
Sign In or Register to comment.