fucking legends! if you're like me and their massive 18+ studio album discography isn't enough to quench your thirst for all the incredible & unique stuff these guys do, collecting their live performances is a journey all unto itself. since they're an improv group, all of their live performances are completely new songs, some of which i like just as much as their studio albums, if not more (Live at WFMU 2/10/2009 is absolutely phenomenal!), and others that end up influencing studio tracks later on (Live @ Studio 22 1999 is an early verision of Aether, which released 2001). these guys are easily one of my favorite jazz groups ever, they sit right alongside Tortoise as far as how much i adore them goes. they're also the long reigning champions for the "artists with tracks so long i hardly have any scrobbles despite listening to them for a copious amount of time" category
The Necks are brilliant, end of story. going through their discography is quite the treat, if a little daunting for the uninitiated. I'd say the band really start getting holy shit-incredible beginning with 'Hanging Gardens', and every release after does not disappoint either. 'Aether', 'Chemist', 'Silverwater', 'Open'... all soooo good... *drools*
A top 5 of Necks albums is impossible, as pretty much everything I have heard is amazing! It depends on my mood which one I prefer more, Drive-By, Chemist and Hanging Gardens are more groove-based. Open and Silverwater are more spacious, ambient like. Aether, Mosquito and Townsville are quite lush, more Reichian/jazzy. Mindset is very dense and slightly claustrophobic. Atheneaum... is The Necks in all their glory in a live setting...
Too many good things to choose from, really!
Żadna charakterystyka nie odda finezji ich muzyki, cierpliwie budowanej, operującej niedopowiedzeniami dramaturgii, kojącej, ale zdecydowanie nie ckliwej atmosfery. fajna recenzja w Aktiviście: http://aktivist.pl/blog/the-necks-kompozycja-otwarta/
Best album(s) for me are Drive By, Hanging Gardens and Chemist, but they are all very good. I also like the track Mosquito a lot, it is relaxing as Aether, but even better IMHO.
Silverwater and Mindset are more complex and dense, which is good, but play them less the others.
Great music to work to!
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.