The Necks
Listen to, buy or share
Buy
7digital
iTunes
Amazon
eBay
Biography
Typically a live performance will begin very quietly with one of the musicians playing something very simple. One by one, the other two will join with their own melodies, all three independent yet intertwined. A piece of music usually lasts about 45 minutes and over this time grows in volume and pace and complexity before petering out. They are quite simply an extraordinary live experience.
The Necks are also well known in Europe. Their soundtrack for The Boys was nominated for ARIA Best Soundtrack Album, AFI Best Musical Score and Australian Guild of Screen Composers Award. They have also recorded soundtracks for What’s The Deal? (1997) and In the Mind of the Architect (three one-hour ABC-TV documentaries, 2000).
Top Albums
-
Chemist
2,508 listeners3 tracks
Released:
-
Sex
2,172 listeners1 track
Released:
-
Mindset
1,165 listeners2 tracks
Released:
-
Drive By
1,933 listeners1 track
Events
Add event
Listening Trend
Start scrobbling and track your listening history
Last.fm users scrobble the music they play in iTunes, Spotify, Rdio and over 200 other music players.
Create a Last.fm profileShoutbox
-
dr_bun
also love silerwater, aquatic and aether
-
zarqu
Tough call between Drive By, Hanging Gardens and Chemist. Although I really love the meaty piano on SIlent Night's Black.
-
dr_bun
or rather drive by then chemist
-
dr_bun
best album? i say maybe drive by or chemist...
-
JBThazard
lol @ ad hominems, calm down pessimistic tour, we are not 12 year olds.
-
zarqu
I just listened to their 2007 Bimhuis live set. Man, I wish I could see them live sometime. Last time they were in Finland was in 2001, so slim chance I think.
-
Ackibear
Saw these guys last night for the first time, amazing twin set, their recorded releases only scratch the surface of their true sound.
-
frags
Selfishness implies that you deny someone else something, digital copies are infinite. If anything it's selfish to own the last copy of a limited edition. Just as it is to keep a famous painting hidden in a private collection.
-
optimistic_tour
That response in no way addresses or rebukes what I said, jbthazard. You're a certifiable cheap bastard if you think you shouldn't have to pay to own art. Sure, everyone should have an equal chance at experiencing it - that's why the proliferation of streaming services and internet radio and youtube and other channels of experience is an amazing thing. But it's the epitome of selfishness to think you should have all the albums you want at "real thing" quality for absolutely no price. And please stop comparing this to painting; there is no analogous framework here, which is why you can't make sense of the comparison. You do, in fact, pay to go to a museum (even if it's via taxes or a donation) to see paintings - although I should probably say "people do" since you clearly wouldn't spend money on it.
-
frags
"Not to mention the obvious fact that many bands who exist today would have much less exposure/prominence without the internet, and subsequently less money. " Exactly, a lot of artists who had some success in the 90's and a subsequent drop in CD-sales in the 00's complain about piracy. Have they seriously considered how much the competition has increased since then, especially bands who haven't updated their sound?
-
JBThazard
Paintings are in a sense recorded art, too. We don't buy tickets to "concerts" in which we witness an artist recreate one of his/her paintings the way we watch musicians recreate/reperform their own works. We have always valued art in both senses: experiencing it with the presence of the artist, and without it.
-
JBThazard
optimistic, that doesn't sound right at all. Music is not infinite either, be it physically or temporally. One can easily repeat a song over and over just as they can repeat the act of looking at a painting over and over, both are equal in their quantified finiteness or infinitude, whichever fits better. Digital quality, in terms of representing the "real thing" also concerns paintings and music. Mp3s are technically speaking not the real thing since they are lossy, data is deleted for the sake of space. High resolutions, for audio or images, is sufficient for recreating the "real thing". Art and the very act of appreciating it becomes an esoteric and elitist activity without ways of spreading it to the masses, be it via radio, internet, etc.. Not to mention the obvious fact that many bands who exist today would have much less exposure/prominence without the internet, and subsequently less money.
-
BoothsBullet
if you like the necks, you might like my music, long-form loop-based improvisation! http://willbrant.bandcamp.com/album/loree-way
-
Dips_Me_Lid
Music for dark rooms.
-
Itochan60
I tried this band, I really really did...but I just ended up bored after about 20 minutes in to a track.
-
optimistic_tour
We should go back to the days when, if you wanted to hear music, someone had to be in the room playing it for you. Because that's what would happen if no one valued recorded art. The analogy toward paintings does not fit. A painter creates a physical piece that is not infinite - copies seen on a computer screen are just an approximation, and its perceived value lies in the singularity of its existence as much as its artistic merit; the musician's recording is intangible and repeatable - you are getting the "real thing" whether it's mp3 or vinyl or tape. That being said I think paying for mp3s is bullshit because I do value something tangible with my purchase.
-
Drakemirow
"We want people to fall for our music because they somehow heard it" - i don't get it. but i'm glad to read that they make good money. always thought they might be to fameless for that.
-
JBThazard
I agree with frags. I think a musician should definitely keep the right to have the ability to earn money off their business, but perhaps I suffer from cognitive dissonance because the idea of paying money for art is ridiculous to me. What if people began charging money for digital copies of famous paintings? Sounds ridiculous to any of you? We do the same with digital copies of music. Is it really right to capitalize on art and say that only those who afford it are worthy of listening? Should music be legally owned by musicians/record labels and sold with monetary priorities? I'm glad more musicians are beginning to become lenient towards file sharing, or better yet releasing their music for free.
-
frags
It's going to hurt if you have trapped yourself in an ideology where sharing is stealing and fans are customers. Some musicians follow a different ideology which recognizes the internet as a positive force. For them it doesn't hurt, it's a good feeling.
-
optimistic_tour
I think everyone has to keep in mind the fact that when you create something and put it out there in the world, its always going to hurt knowing that people are stealing it, no matter what. Musicians sharing this sentiment are undoubtedly driven by the emotion more than any logical assessment of how file sharing may or may not help them in the long run. Especially musicians who have been creating since long before the internet was around and still haven't found their craft particularly lucrative..
All 120 shouts
Top Listeners
-
Aderus
Top Listener -
ivicica1
Top Listener -
scottlangstaff
Top Listener -
zarqu
Top Listener
