I don't get it. Middling tempos, and simple repetitive riffs

Edgelords go home

listen again

raw power is better

It's just a good album with good songs.
Music doesn't have to be super complex or heavy in order to be good

>getting the stooges

>there's a lot heavier stuff today.

Yeah but not in the 60's. That album created a whole new style of music.

Fun House is still one of the heaviest records ever made. Few things kick as much ass as the intro to TV Eye. Maybe you're just autistic OP. It's rock n roll.

Funhouse is the tits.

Down on the street where the faces shine
Floatin' around, I'm a real low mind
See a pretty thing
Ain't no wall
See a pretty thing
It ain't no wall
No wall
No wall
No wall

>>70576544
>real low mind
it's real o mind

>>70574769
What makes it good though?

>>70576485
>one of the heaviest records ever made
Lmao nope. Pantera does the straightforward hard rock groove thing much heavier, particularly on their album Vulgar Display Of Power. Then there are groups like Swans, Gnaw Their Tongues, sludge metal in general, etc. that are far FAR heavier in general.

>>70576485
Oh fuck yes that intro is incredible, gets me excited every time.

>>70576581
What makes Fun House one of the heaviest records of all time is the fact that it's heavy without the Panatera "look at how heavy we are" shtick. It just simply is heavy. They weren't trying to compensate for being a shitty band like every metal band. Maybe you'll grow out of being 14 someday.

>>70576679
>Panatera "look at how heavy we are" shtick
What does this mean? I don't give two fucks about image based aesthetics in music. The only thing that matters is the music. Pantera makes music that's far more visceral and musically interesting while taking a very similar approach to composition.

>>70574563
one of the best male vocal performances of all time imo. the musics minimal and explosive at the same time; very well done imo.

It's the rawest album I've ever heard. Just stripped down emotion and aggression. And I haven't heard anything that came out before it that sounds even remotely similar.

>>70576728
I definitely agree on the vocals being fantastic though. Arguably the one thing I do like about the record. I wish the playing was as raw and intense as the vocals themselves.

>>70576716
It seems like honest to god rock n roll just isn't your thing. Which is fine. But you don't have to insult it.

>>70576759
The playing is more raw and intense than the vocals. I've never seen somebody be so wrong about something. Good god man.

listening is sort of like the cover, slipping into and being carried along by an oozing river of lava

you tellin' me Loose ain't a fun ass song?

>>70576765
>insult it
where am I even insulting though?

>>70576782
>playing is more raw
>bluesy hard rock that everyone and their mothers was doing at the time along with some crappy takes on what TVU and Pink Floyd did on their first couple albums

OP's mind has been poisoned by the idea of metal being heavy. He's helpless.

>>70576870
Metal is the BIGGEST music

>>70576782
the playing is restrained, sparse, and repetitious but still abrasive due to distortion and this gives iggy pop a ton of space to howl and lead the song. it's also at times incredibly dense and wild in a very orchestrated, blocky way (if that makes sense), and those times are when iggy pop steps back to join the background noise.

>>70576870
>can only rely on insults instead of observing objective qualities of the music
Lmao. Playing ambient guitar parts while the rest of the band plays by the numbers hard rock somehow accounts for the heaviest music.

>>70576581
>Doesn't like Stooges
>Like Swans

wow neo nu male /mu/ everyone fuck fantano for ruining this place

>>70577140
>Now I regret all the times I've used words like "power" and "energy" to describe rock and roll, because this is what such rhetoric should have been saved for.
And they more intense stuff would come for which words like power and energy should have been saved for.

>>70576860
It's not just bluesy hard rock. Compare Fun House to any popular hard rock record from 1970 and Fun House is like an A bomb going off. You don't know what you're talking about. Accept it and move on.

>>70576581
>Pantera

Fun House came out at the start of the 70s, and like a lot of stuff from that time, it represents a transition between 60s and 70s sounds. The album still relies a lot on 60s psychedelic rock sounds, but the horns on the title track give it a distinctly 70s flavor.

>>70576971
Again you have no idea what you're talking about. The only reason the stuff on Fun House could be considered "by the numbers" is because people have been ripping it off for 40 years. It's not the Stooges fault you grew up listening to all the stuff that was ripping it off.

Why are people talking about how heavy it is? Punk isn't supposed to be heavy, it's not Sabbath.

>>70576581
Pantera are heavy, but still pretty clean and structured (TGSTK is a bit more unstructured). Stooges are a chaotic wall of noise that barely even stays within a beat a lot of times.

File: Robert Christgau 1978.jpg (103KB, 594x398px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 594x398px

The Stooges [Elektra, 1969]

Stupid-rock at its best--the side of the Velvet Underground that never developed (John Cale produced). B+

Fun House [Elektra, 1970]

Now I regret all the times I've used words like "power" and "energy" to describe rock and roll, because this is what such rhetoric should have been saved for. Shall I compare it to an atom bomb? a wrecker's ball? a hydroelectric plant? Language wasn't designed for the job. Yet despite its sonic impact I find that the primary appeal of the music isn't physical--I have to be in a certain mood of desperate abandon before it reaches my body. It always interests me intellectually, though--with its repetiveness beyond the call of incompetence and its solitary new-thing saxophone, this is genuinely "avant-garde" rock. The proof is the old avant-garde fallacy of "L.A. Blues"--trying to make art about chaos by reproducing same. A-

>>70577379
Raw Power [Columbia, 1973]

In which David Bowie remembers "the world's forgotten boy" long enough to sponsor an album--and mixes it down till it's thin as an epicure's wrist. The side-openers, "Search and Destroy" and "Raw Power," voice the Iggy Pop ethos more insanely (and aggressively) than "I Wanna Be Your Dog." But despite James Williamson's guitar, the rest disperses in their wake. B+

Raw Power [Columbia/Legacy, 1997]

Strict constructionists and lo-fi snobs charge indignantly that by remixing his own album Iggy has made a mockery of history and done irreparable damage to a priceless work of art. This is really stupid. Before it was anointed the Platonic idea of rock and roll by desperate young men who didn't have much else to choose from, first-generation Iggyphiles charged just as indignantly that David Bowie had mixed the real thing way too thin--as Iggy observes, this classic-by-comparison always sounded "weedy" (although, not to insult a valued colleague, "David's" version was also "very creative"). So the pumped bass and vocals Iggy has uncovered on the original tapes, which were supposed to coexist with their high-end screech to begin with, are a quantum improvement. Plus you can finally hear the celeste on "Penetration"--sounds great! Only the slow ones, which like all of Iggy's slow ones are not as good as his fast ones, stand between a statement of principle and a priceless work of art. A-

>>70577266
I mentioned that the basic bitch blues rock is complimented by the ambient abrasive TVU/early Pink Floyd. Yeah other hard rock bands didn't have those bits, nor did they have a vocalist like Iggy, but shit stuff like that little bluesy as fuck bit that ends the main riff on Down On The Street that's just straight up copy pasted from one of these blues rock bands.

>>70577291
>I can't handle the truth.

>>70577295
It's their fault that since everything else did it better, they are obsolete. Maybe there's a good reason outside of "omg too harsh" that they didn't get a lot of love during their time either.

>>70577320
>Stooges
>chaotic wall of noise
I didn't know verse chorus verse with an occasional bridge where one chord is repeatedly played sloppily is somehow chaotic now

>>70577420
unless he means the title track on Fun House

>>70577420
>Maybe there's a good reason outside of "omg too harsh" that they didn't get a lot of love during their time either

The Stooges were more of a live than a studio band back in the day, for many years bootlegs were more popular than their albums.

>>70577420
You're the dumbest anon on this board. Refusing to accept history that doesn't subscribe to your viewpoint.

>>70577266
so it's music for the critics and not for the people? you're doing a great job at reinforcing historian anthropologist before listener. this a bomb going off youre stuck in a fucking bubble, your parents and even normies would hear this and think "its just plain rock"

>>70577467
>so it's music for the critics
No shit. As the Christgau reviews above demonstrate, the Stooges were a critical darling back than.

>>70577467
I've played Fun House for a lot of people that didn't like it because it was "too much" you're the one that lives in a bubble. All your opinions aside the record kicks ass.

>>70577453
Were they not so ridiculously sloppy that Iggy would have to like stop the music, then ask each individual musician to come in one after the other?

>>70577464
What am I not accepting about history? Either way this has nothing to do with history, even I have in the damn OP itself mentioned that yes this must have been next level when it came out, but we are talking about now.

>>70577501
My mom grew up in that era and she doesn't like Fun House at all, says it's just druggy gibberish.

>>70577509
Now the record is still great. You not liking it doesn't make it not still good.

>>70577500
a critical darling? you sound like a fag. that's not an argument.
>>70577501
kek. who were these people? too much in the sense "ouch. turn that off. thats kind of annoying" because its effect is null and dull. if you wanted to hear something chaotic, defiant and youth orientated in 1970 there was a wide variety of jazz for that and guess where all the cool kids went? not the stooges LOL

>>70577501
You're autistic anon. You didn't get what they meant.

>>70577398
>Only the slow ones, which like all of Iggy's slow ones are not as good as his fast ones
I agree and that's why I really don't care for The Idiot.

>>70577560
You're desperately trying to prove that me liking this record is wrong. You look like a goddamn idiot. The record's 40 years old. There's nothing to say about it but i like it. Fuck off.

>>70577560
Also you're a teenager on an image board. You're looking at the 70s retrospectively. You don't know anything.

>>70577758
you sound like a degenerate. op and anyone who dislike the stooges should be allowed to explain themselves without being insulted likewise. im starting to think the stooges are just a middling safe choice for sensitive boys who want "a thing". its closer to 50 which is even more depressing given sonics monk time the mothers the presidents of the usa and probably a ton of other shit is closer to 60.

>>70574563
it doesn't have to be complex or intricate to be 'good'
it's very direct and very focused fist fight music

>>70577789
and you do? so websters example 1 pretentious. typical stooges fans.

As you've probably heard, when the Stooges first signed with Elektra, they had five songs that pretty much comprised their entire setlist. So they dutifully recorded them and presented it to the Elektra execs, who promptly told them "What the hell? You can't have an LP with only five songs!" So the band fibbed and told them "Oh yeah...we have more material. Don't worry about it." That night, they hastily banged out another three songs to pad out the album.

>>70577843
No I don't. But I don't go on image board and give my opinion on a decade's music i never experienced first hand. i like the record and that's as deep as it goes.

>>70577875
ironic cus youre a pussy

>>70577910
do you know what that word means?

File: 1485070780834.jpg (37KB, 450x331px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x331px

>>70577926
t. stooges defener

>>70577973
that's a good dog

>>70577973
I don't have to defen a band that's already been cemented as great. Try a little harder next time.

File: 1485164754465.jpg (24KB, 600x448px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x448px

>>70577999
those are good trips

if by lying if i said i wasnt impressed

>>70578009
that's so innocuous its offensive. you must truly be deaf from all that bad music because it sounds like you cant hear what you're saying. "this band as been cemented as great so i dont have to defend myself"? pretty ron jeromy is one of the greatest porn stars im sure youd subject your tight teen rectum to him too.

>>70578113
hey anon im kidding you can like the stooges lol

>>70578113
I don't have to defend myself. I like the band. I'm not personally insulted that you don't or think i'm dumb for liking them.

>>70577266
This. Holy fuck OP is clueless. One of the most notable things about Ron Ashton as a guitar player is that, especially for the time period, he played with almost no blues influences. Seriously, his playing stands out a lot because of how different it is. I'm guessing that the OP just doesn't know about what blues playing actually is, and how people from that period used blues formulas in more standard rock, because it's easy as fuck to hear how Ashton did almost none of that.

>>70577851
According to people who were there the pre-first album songs went 15 minutes, included oil drum percussion and Ron Ashton just making noise. I get the impression they were closer to "LA Blues" than anything from the first Elektra record, but the stuff on side 2 is reputedly closest to their live repetoire while side 1 is more Cale-directed.

>>70578320
nice samefag
>>70578334
i dont think that, but how boring, like the stooges

>>70578373
>According to people who were there the pre-first album songs went 15 minutes, included oil drum percussion and Ron Ashton just making noise
Shades of Iron Butterfly, it would seem.

>>70578416
It's funny how you don't respond to >>70578351
who directly criticized your view point. Maybe you're a dumbass.

>>70578467
i'm not talking to that anon or talking about that point. if you have to make a post saying i need to respond another guy you're a boot licker and clearly offended m8. lots of guitarists didnt use blues riffs, lots of people knew what noise was. only important to the tip of the iceberg history which, again, is a point of mass culture and anthropology; not in my ears please. also dont know why youre using such harsh language.

>>70578590
I just thought it was funny that you didn't respond to him when he was making a point against you. I don't give a shit about you or your opinions.

File: allmusic Van Halen.jpg (343KB, 1539x718px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1539x718px

This reviewer claims Van Halen's S/T was further from blues rock than anything before, but it doesn't approach the rawness of Fun House.

>>70578590
The fact that you won't respond to him makes it look like you're incapable of doing so

>>70574753
Agreed!

>>70578669
>when he was making a point against you.
nice reading comprehension. anon for 20 posts you've just shown yourself extremely grudging and vindicative with absolutely nothing brought to table to support your responses time and time again. what are you looking for buddy?

File: trash.jpg (394KB, 778x1018px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 778x1018px

>>70578695
>AllMusic

>>70578737
A little peace of mind.

>>70578778
>>70578695
Van Halen were totally inspired by the Stooges, but otherwise I agree.

>>70578975
>stooges fans
>>70578724
all guitar music sounds the same though

>>70578351
>expects a response when what they're saying has already been refuted in the topic
The delusion of The Stooges fans right now...

>>70579789
How is it refuted? Because you said you think its sounds bluesy and all guitar music sounds the same? Here's a quote about his playing from a guitar player's magazine:

>his rhythmic attack and hypnotizing, angular progressions provided both the perfect accompaniment to Iggy Pop’s onstage masochism and a direct counterpoint to the blues and folk sounds that, until then, had comprised rock’s foundation.

http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Remembered_Ron_Asheton

It's widely acknowledged that he was one of the few non-blues influenced players in hard rock at that time. Seriously, if you know anything about what blues playing technically is, you could easily hear the Ron Asheton didn't do it very often. A lot of Stooges songs fit a I III V chord progression, which blues never uses, and most of his leads are disjointed and don't follow a minor pentatonic scale. The Stooges' music wasn't built around standard blues rock, and it's really easy to see that if you actually know anything about music. But, I already know you're not going to accept that, and respond with some more inane bullshit.

>>70580013
>A lot of Stooges songs fit a I III V chord progression

The riff in Loose is a pretty stock psychedelic rock riff.

>>70580040
>psychedelic rock riff.
And that means it's "basic bitch blues rock?" It uses a I III IV progression, which is not a blues chord progression.

>>70580013
https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/t/the_stooges/down_on_the_street_tab.htm

Main riff is LITERALLY switching back and forth between I and IV while the solo is the epitome of a blues solo with it staying within the pentatonic shapes and bends like a motherfucker.

>>70580250
I never claimed it was.

>>70580013
https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/t/the_stooges/loose_tab.htm

Entails a chord progression based mostly on I and IV except the F# and G power chords. Solo again in the pentatonic blues shape except the very last bit (note the 14th fret stuff on the B string which would be a C#)

>>70580287
Did I say every one of their songs didn't follow blues patterns? No, I said a lot of them don't. And that's true enough that Ron Asheton is primarily remembered as a player who was using blues formulas much less than his contemporaries. OP has said that The Stooges were just another standard blues-rock band; they weren't, and it's pretty easy to prove that. Down on the Street is probably their most standard blues-ish song, and even that's pretty different compared to what OP seems to be saying they are.

>>70580013
https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/t/the_stooges/tv_eye_ver2_tab.htm

Changes in the chords very akin to 50s Rock n Roll with a minor twist. Pretty bluesy, but nowhere near being a counterpoint.

Solo perfectly stays within the pentatonic shapes.

>>70580396
>Did I say every one of their songs didn't follow blues patterns? No, I said a lot of them don't.
>a direct counterpoint to the blues and folk sounds that, until then, had comprised rock’s foundation.
>It's widely acknowledged that he was one of the few non-blues influenced players in hard rock at that time.
>almost no blues influences
>almost no blues influences
>almost no blues influences
>almost no blues influences

>OP has said that The Stooges were just another standard blues-rock band
It was mentioned repeatedly that The Stooges went for a level of heaviness that the Blues bands didn't, this is even mentioned in the OP itself. It has also been mentioned that there are parts in their works that are like The Velvet Underground inspired that are nothing like Blues and their work is a combination of the two. Again, your points themselves have been refuted in the topic before.

ITT a bunch of people that know nothing about playing music

Dirt has one of the best guitar works I've heard in my life.

>>70576915
4u

>>70580250
it's I-iii (minor third)-IV. minor third is the basic note of blues.