MovieChat Forums > Dig! (2005) Discussion > help me understand the appeal of BJM

help me understand the appeal of BJM


OK, so I'm an old guy, when I was 16 in 1970 I was listening to Captain Beefheart, The Velvet Underground, Hendrix, The Doors, Zappa, The Beatles of course, and Syd Barret was still in Pink Floyd. Then I had the joy of a succession of musical innovation and brilliance through Glam (Bowie, Roxy Music, T-Rex, Eno (my hero)), and ProgRock (musicianship which is now completely reviled and to be avoided at all cost: Yes, Peter Gabriel's Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELO, ELP, Mahavishnu Orchestra), then Punk! Then New Wave! Too many great bands to mention, an embarrassment of riches all the way.

Then came the 90's. Thud.

SO my question is to people that like the BJM specifically, and "indie" "rock" "music" in general (or to me "pseudo-rebellious" "traditional" "product"), I understand if you like the sound, and there are always good songs, but do you see it as innovative, rebellious or edgy? That's the part I can't figure out. I mean Punk has been around for 30 years and people still act like they've discovered something counterculture, c'mon, Iggy Pop is used to advertise a cruise line for suburbanites nowadays! I'm trying to picture me acting like Mr. Rebel in 1970 by listening to Bing Crosby and Doris Day, what the?!

All through Dig! I hear people that seem credible praising BJM, but I hear nothing in the music that wasn't done better 30 years ago, and back then it really was brilliant and new on top of being good songs. Also people keep talking about Anton being a great musician, he plays all these instruments, etc, but all we see is a pathetically half-a**ed sitar jam and him doinking around on a Fisher Price xylophone... the songs I've heard have nothing but a regurgitation of the old cool psychedelic garage band sound. I saw BJM live once at the Sunset Junction fest a few years ago, I remember the tortured punk schtick being pretty funny (but didn't know he was so messed up for real which would have made it sad), and then some totally unremarkable genre music. His lyrics... someone here actually compared him to Dylan?! Is it really just people losing all rational sense by falling for the idea that because he's a stoned a-hole be must be a genius? (don't just swear at me, how about responding with some lyrics of his to help me change my mind).

I have never cared about a band's image/looks/personality, I just go by the music. So people hating the Dandy Warhols for their look is irrelevant to me. For the record I do hear some interesting stuff in the Dandy's music, they start with the old genre but there are other elements involved, some ambient drone, innovative sounds/instrument treatments/production, hooks, interesting ideas about something other than teenage girl angst relationship/depression cliches, and a post-Phillip Glass "systematic" approach. OK Now the BJM fans will really hate me so as long as I'm at it there are a few other recent bands I like: M.I.A., LCD Soundsystem, Magnetic Fields, Fiery Furnaces, Chemical Brothers (hey Anton - The Pills Won't Help You Now!), a few others and 3 that have been around since 1970, never compromised - record deal, MTV or whatever - Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed and Sparks!


*
Downloads of Ambient & Neo-classical Music : http://music.download.com/dj_dreamstream

reply

Help me understand...

Why certain members of the boomer generation feel that their generation is the only one that matters culturally & artistically. "We started this", "we originated this" basically we, we, we... I mean we are innudated with it in the media. I love all the retirement ads (one even using that "rebel" icon Dennis Hopper) with their 60s music showing how the boomers are blazing new paths to old age. Just go away already! BTW, who do you think those cruise line ads are really marketed to? It's the same we-(think)-are-all-different- but-really-all-the-same boomers.

Don't get me wrong. I love some 1960s & 1970s music. I love the Beatles, the Who, Donovan, Roxy Music, the Kinks, Hendrix, Patti Smith etc. However, that doesn't exempt me from liking music that came afterwards. I personally don't like hair metal,emo & new country but I can still respect that it's the artists expression.

As stated before on this board, Dylan didn't do anything that Guthrie hadn't done before him. He added elements of his own & made it Dylan. Same with Clapton & Robert Johnson. Same with Springsteen & Dylan. Petty & the Byrds. Nirvana & the Pixies. etc etc See how that works. You take something you enjoy & make it your own. How is that different or shall I say more musically innovative and brilliant from what Anton ( & many contemporary artists) have done?

Don't swear at you? You started it first with the name calling. You can call Anton a stoned a-hole & not think the same thing for Dylan? Dylan seems to me the original stoned a-hole. I've seen Don't Look Back. I get the impression that Dylan is/was the same type of artist unwilling to compromise himself that Anton is. Maybe lyrically Dylan is a better musician but as for music arrangement I would give that one to Anton.

Also, I think it unfair that you judge an artist (in this case Anton) on what you've seen in one movie & 1 concert and applied to his entire musical output. Yes, he is shown playing a toy xylophone. However, when you hear the completed song, you realize that it was a small component as with the snare drum, modulator, & guitar to complete this whole arrangement. Bsaically same concept as the Beatles using a mop & bucket to help create "Yellow Submarine".

Also, as for Anton's messed up drug use making you sad... How about all the artists you mention that you enjoy. All of them (Captain Beefheart, The Velvet Underground, Hendrix, The Doors, Zappa, The Beatles of course, and Syd Barret was still in Pink Floyd) with the exception of Zappa used & sometimes even glorified drugs. Drugs even killed some of them. Let me guess. Their drug use gave them artistic integrity.

As for me being a BJM fan & hating you, I don't personally hate you. I don't know you well enough to hate you. I do, however hate people with holier-than-thou (especially generational) attitudes on what true art is.

Thanks for reading
Lisa

BTW, If yourself as Mr Rebel couldn't be bothered to listen to Bing Crosby in 1970, what about (one the ultimate iconclasts) David Bowie recording a duet with Bing Crosby. Obviously, he wasn't so shortsighted to think the previous generation's musicians were below him.



reply

i guess you didn't read my whole post, i didn't say music was great in the 60's and that's it. I said i saw real innovation and rebellion all the way into the late 80's. The "boomer" in me likes BJM because it sounds exactly like the music i heard by every garage band at my high school. the question is how do you see this as new or rebellious or creative on the high level of the other genres i mentioned, i still don't understand. the problem with comparing to Dylan was not whether either of them was a stoned a-hole, the problem is comparing the quality, innovation and importance of their lyrics! if you're young and still going through your attraction to abusive pretentious "bad boys", enjoy yourself, Anton is perfect for you.

In fact, I used to blow my friend's minds in High School because I would play "Careful with that Axe Eugene," back to back with Benny Goodman's "Sing Sing Sing", I appreciated Benny Goodman's music and lots of other "old stuff", Cab Calloway, Bessie Smith, Charles Ives, Stravinsky, Beethoven, Vivaldi, but that was established music, not rebellion. My parents thought the Beatles sounded like "noise" but nowadays parents think their kid's music sounds like lame boring record-co image-conscious packaged imitations of the stuff they liked, when's the next revolution coming?

If you don't care about the level of creativity I'm talking about that's fine, any music that makes you happy is a blessing, it's just that if you had been around in 1968 you would have been listening to Pat Boone, not Bob Dylan.




*
Downloads of Ambient & Neo-classical Music : http://music.download.com/dj_dreamstream

reply

oh well i didn;t read your whle post either - so you say:

"Also, as for Anton's messed up drug use making you sad... How about all the artists you mention that you enjoy. All of them (Captain Beefheart, The Velvet Underground, Hendrix, The Doors, Zappa, The Beatles of course, and Syd Barret was still in Pink Floyd) with the exception of Zappa used & sometimes even glorified drugs. Drugs even killed some of them. Let me guess. Their drug use gave them artistic integrity."

Again you're comparing Anton with people who are in a whole other class of innovation, they were doing revolutionary things that made the previous generation's ears bleed. And they were experimenting with drugs to expand consciousness, it was a new revolutionary thing, not 30 years later being a tired tired TIRED old cliche of a heroin addict! it's been done! enough! pleeeeeze! Also I don't ever remember John Lennon kicking anyone in the head because he was having a hissy fit onstage. Finally drug use did make me sad, it killed Hendrix and many other great artists, why does it still impress you so much?


*
Downloads of Ambient & Neo-classical Music : http://music.download.com/dj_dreamstream

reply


Using certain drugs to expand consciousness musically was only a new revolutionary thing because those kind of drugs were made more readily available.

Aldous Huxley & Alstair Crowley used psychedelics to expand their consciousness. Samuel Coleridge & William Burroughs used opium to inspire their poetry. All of them & several others used drugs to explore their art in new ways. So how is that a " new revolutionary thing"?

I personally, don't find drug use whether used today, 30 years ago or 300 years ago is ever a cliche. People take them for the own reasons. To imply that everyone takes them now because they idolize Hendrix or Buckley is simply ridiculous. I know that there are some that do but to assume that is the sole reason for everyone is insane. Do you know Anton well enough to determine that he started doing heroin so he could be like his musical heroes? Anton has recently said in an interview that he liked the high (which is the reason most people take them right?) He has also stated that he stopped taking because they were hindering his productivity. Too bad Hendrix & MOrrison learn from that.

L

PS:I love John Lennon's music dearly. However, have you never about his "lost weekend" in LA. He became drunk & unruly & started a fight with the Smother Bros. manager. As much as we think otherwise all musicians are humans just like us.


"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done there is nothing new under the sun"

reply

The oracles of ancient Greece were huffing, tribal cultures got high on all kinds of things, the Impressionists drank absinthe, of course. The point is it was a revolutionary thing in the 60's for influencing popular music, which is what we're talking about here. No student of modern culture would have a problem with admitting that, unless they're trying realllly hard to rationalize Anton's drug use.

I have no problem with people liking BJM, I'm not saying he has no talent, it takes talent and devotion to make a song, any song, and lots of work to ever play a song in front of an audience. I like the sound, but it is nostalgia to me, not something co contemporary. I have NO problem with putting him in the same league as Bob Seeger or Celine Dion. BUT The things that still mystify me are :
A] saying he's a musical genius.
B] thinking he's doing anything new, edgy or innovative.
C] thinking his drug use and neurotic antics are anything but a tired old cliche.
D] thinking that whether or not a band has a record contract, or has fun publicizing their music, necessarily means anything about the quality of their music.

Lots of musicians I like have been a-holes a lot of the time, but they were great IN SPITE OF IT, in Anton's case it seems it is a BIG part of the reason people think he's so cool. And that sucks for Anton, he has a legion of enablers.

*
Downloads of Ambient & Neo-classical Music : http://music.download.com/dj_dreamstream

reply

[deleted]

I guess you didn't read all my post either.

And what is it that music should only be rebellious & innovative & high level to have any merit? If that's the case, what about Bob Seger, Carly Simon, Foreigner, Celine Dion & Brittany Spears. Nothing they did could be construed as earth shattering & changing the musical world. Yet, they have devoted followers who seem to enjoy them solely based on the music (which is the whole point anyway,right?).

What BJM did that was considered "rebellious" was reintroduce 60s garage & adding a bit of shoegaze, new wave & other elements. They started when the radio was innudated with the tail end of grunge & the beginning of nu-metal & gangsta rap. What they were doing wasn't the mainstream. What also I believe sets BJM apart (or Anton as he is the only constant member)is that he has released albums without the assistance(or as with the Dandies-intervention) of a record label. He showed & continues to show how to make music on your own terms. He still releases records & he still allows anyone to download his music for free. This has been for years before Radiohead's current pay-what-you-want-download-our-new-record. I agree with you, some music today is record-co.-image-conscious. And I agree, I think it's sad that many people are willing to accept that. Your current taste in music shows that you are willing to look beyond Amer Idol & the radio to find unique music. Kudos.

I think in this age we are never going to see music that "shocks" your parents. One reason is that boomers are parents & they experiened a lot of dynamic change. Therefore, I think society as a whole has become more immune to anything that could be considered "revolutionary". I think G.G. Allin (as typical punk as his music was)set that bar pretty high with his extreme behavior.

As I stated, I enjoy Dylan's lyrics. Did they change the world? stop the war? bring world peace? no. Poetic & stirring definitely. But important, how? He wrote & told stories just like countless folk & blues singers had done before & after him. Once again, I personally like Anton's melodies better. I think Paul Simon & John Lennon & Kurt Cobain trumps them both lyrically however.

Actually, I am past the "bad boy" attraction age. IN fact, I was born in 1968! And if you had read the 1st part of my post, I mentioned that I listened to many bands from the 1960s. Therefore, you can clearly see that I wouldn't of been listening to Pat Boone (not that there's anything wrong with that for the people that like that sort of thing). I am married to a musician who plays in 2 different bands & I work with many bands. Therefore, I am surrounded by many levels of creativity & innovation. What constitues that is & always will be subjective. I listened to your music on your myspace. While it's not my cup of tea, I can appreciate what you're trying to do. I do, however, fail to see it as rebellious & innovative.

L

PS:So I am confused. You must of been considered a bit of a "Mr Rebel" by playing Pink Floyd & Benny Goodman back to back. So why the comment implying that it wouldn't of been cool to listen to Doris Day or Bing Crosby?

reply

You are so right, everything you said is super spot on.

BJM are complete cack, hyped by Psuedo intellectual pretentious bastards who wouldnt know music if it turned itself into a dildo and went up their rectum.

CHANGE EVERYTHING YOU ARE, AND EVERYTHING YOU WERE, YOUR NUMBER HAS BEEN CALLED.

reply

BJM sux. I thought this was literally a joke movie or Mockumentary making fun of "indie" music.

reply

ETC

The BJM sound really *beep* cool, they don't give a *beep* what you think either.

reply

I would argue that making the music they make now, is more daring than making the music in the 60's and 70's (as a follower at least, obviously not more daring than being the first ones to make it) because it's so separate from the time it was made. The great thing to me about Dylan/Stones/Cohen/Velvet Underground, are how timeless they are. When I listen to them I don't think
"60's" I think, "wow, what unbelievable music". I think the same thing when I listen to the BJM. Much like the artists I listed previously, it has a traditional sound to it while adding it's own unique feel to it. What makes the BJM different from the artists it's inspired by is the huge element of mysticism. It takes the mystical elements present in the Beatles and Stones and takes it to a more radical extreme. This actually made the music somewhat unaccesible to me at first, because I'm used to everything sounding so processed, containing such limited dynamic range it becomes very one dimensional, static and in some cases inhuman. The BJM is the exact opposite of most music on the radio now. It's full of dynamic range, full of life and full of creative energy. The DIY lo-fi, traditional, homey vibe to their music is incredibly refreshing in this culture that's steadily allowing techology to swallow it whole. It may not sound revolutionary to your ears, but for someone like me (24 years old) growing up in this culture of Backstreet Boys, and Nicklebacks, who has to find good music by digging into the past and browsing myspace, music like this IS revolutionary. Just because similar stuff has been done (and frankly apart from Dylan,The Velvet Underground and The Rolling Stones at their peak, I think they do it better than most of the bands they were influenced by) before doesn't mean it can't be revolutionary. And it is revolutionary in the context of THIS time, in sound and especially in attitude. It doesn't hurt that they work in the genre's I love the most (folk, rock n roll, and psychadelia etc)

reply

[deleted]

I agree completely with the original poster. I've downloaded most of BJM's and Dandy Warhols' records since seeing this film, and honestly, the Warhols are doing much more innovative and original material than BJM. BJM is nothing but a spectacle, really, and I think a lot of people who sing their praises are really just enamored with Anton's cliche image and outlandish, immature antics. He's no musical messiah, and I have heard better psychedlic bands at a local pub.

reply

We live in a day and age where an artist doesn't need to be an artist anymore. You don't need to know how to sing thanks to autotune and ghost writers. Pop music isn't Elton John and David Bowie anymore, it's T-Pain "singing" (autotuning) about a girl who wears name brand clothing.
The appeal of the BJM is not that they're the greatest band ever, or even the greatest band in their own genre. It's the fact that it's refreshing to see a band reviving the 60's music in a generation of brain dead musicians all doing the same god damned thing. Of course bands were doing it better 30 years ago, but that doesn't make the BJM bad, it just makes them not as good.
Like I said, it's refreshing to see actual creativity in a world where creativity no longer exists.

He's an *beep* he's a piece of *beep* he belongs in a *beep* mental home in a straight jacket, but the man knows what he's doing and he's doing it well.

I hope that helps.

reply

[deleted]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wouldn't even consider myself a huge BJM fan, it's really more of a casual interest for me, maybe I'll listen to a record of theirs once a week, but I can tell you that from my perspective, there is something about this band that sets them apart. I should say there WAS, considering the original line up is pretty much non-existent.
Sure, there have always been 60's revivalist bands, and there always will be, but this band brought the 60's feel and added a modern edge to it that feels different. Nobody is calling them the greatest band in the world (at least nobody worth listening to). They're just good at what they do.
I'm a HUGE Velvet Underground fan, they're probably my favorite band of all time, and I've spent some time searching for a modern day band that captures the sound and attitude that the VU offered up in the 60's. The BJM has been the closest thing to that.
Like I said, it's refreshing to hear them do stuff that, for the most part, hasn't been done in 50 years.

I think this movie's portrayal of Anton Newcombe has really skewed a lot of people's idea of the band. You see Anton, you see he's a prick on wheels, and you automatically want to hate his music. I can dig that. Now there's no way to prove this, but I'm sure that's the reason why there are so many people like you on here saying that the BJM aren't anything special. The funny part about it all is, I can't even blame you.

I'll say it again, they're no VU or Zeppelin or the Beatles, of course not, but give credit where credit is due. These guys are good, and they've acquired enough critical acclaim to back that up. If you don't like them, fine. You don't have to. But they are unique, and they do offer more to the table then what you're saying, so just respect their music and move along.

You seem to be underselling them for the sake of underselling them. I'm not trying to oversell them either, so don't get it twisted, all I'm saying is they're a breath of fresh air in a world where music smells like *beep*

reply

[deleted]

Well then I guess you're just not a fan.

In this day and age, you're expectations can't be too high, otherwise you'll likely be disappointed with just about everything you hear. It's 2009, not 1965. Not every band you hear praise for is going to be some monumental ground breaking virtuoso of a group. Sometimes the bands are just pretty good (compared to the bands they attempt to emulate from the mid to late 60's), and and now a days in the world of Kanye West, Miley Cirus and T-Pain, being pretty good is quite an accomplishment.

But you don't have to like them. Everyone's got an opinion. The beauty of opinions is they can't be wrong.

reply

[deleted]

Because for true appreciators of music, you can find something you like in just about any form of any music, anywhere.
The bottom line is this, man. You don't like this band and don't understand why some people would. I'll never understand the appeal of hardcore music and slam dancing, but I'm not sitting around arguing with people who do as to why they shouldn't like it.
Your opinion is your opinion. Just accept that some people will disagree with you.

I don't understand why you have to "understand why people like this band". It's pretty cut and dry. Either you like them or you don't, why the hell does there need to be a reason? What ever happened to just liking the way something sounds?

reply

[deleted]

See man, that's all your opinion. You say there are no great painters or poets, while many would disagree with you.
I think Jean Michel Basquiat was a fantastic painter, and you can take Bob Dylan or Jim Morrisson and EASILY call them fantastic poets.
You're a glass half empty type of person, and that's cool, to each their own, but I don't see why you're sitting on here trying convince me that your OPINIONS are better than mine.

Allow me to help you out..
o·pin·ion (noun): A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

reply

All rock music builds on and feeds off of what went before, and augments and adds layers to it, that's just the way it is. The BJM were just a little more obvious about it. The Stones took all their cues from older blues records, and as someone already said Dylan was basically a new Woody Guthrie.

They also deconstructed it and added some punk like anger and resentment and fused it with 60's type melodies and instruments.

This still happens too, the first Strokes record sounded a lot like a modern day Velvet Underground, the Killers have elements of The Who etc, etc...

It's not necesscarily right to call teh BJM original, I prefer a post-modern band.
If you listen carefully you hear where he's drawing his inspiration from , but it also sounds modernand unique too.

For example, 'Oh Lord' sounds like an early Kinks record like 'You Really Got me', and 'The Ballad of Jim Jones'; sounds like Dylan, only it doesn't sound like a pastiche in either case.




Mr.Stay Puft's ok,he's a sailor,he's in NY We get this guy laid we won't have any trouble

reply

[deleted]

whether revolutionary or not, whether headed by a genius or an idiot, its good freakin music

reply

I was with you till you dissed the 90's. The 90's gave us the electronica revolution, trip hop, and some of the best hip hop ever. Also bands like Nirvana, My Bloody Valentine, Weezer & Pavement produced some of their best works.

reply

[deleted]

I don't listen to anything because it's edgy or rebellious. If it sounds good I like it. I've never personally found Bob Dylan's lyrics to be anything special whatsoever, but I wouldn't claim that BJM's are either. The words sound good in their songs. All of the things you say about the Dandys I see in BJM where I see a pop-radio version of the style BJM are all about in the Dandys. I also think that a lot of the bands and eras you listed suck; Punk, New Wave, most Bowie, some of Lou Reed's stuff. To me, bands like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Blind Melon, Black Crowes, Alice in Chains, Jane's Addiction, Red Hot Chili Peppers and some others are great.

reply