Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dubman
i dont keeps a lot of bootlegs on this thing because theres about 40 of them and they would take a LOT of room, but they're fairly frequent so i just popped on KOS from creamfields and found that they use it four times in the space opf a minute, along with the requisite cymbal crashing.
dude come on. its in every concert if not every other song and it's there in EE.
|
I should be more specific. The particular comment made in the article, saying that Underworld uses
"piled up snare rolls and endless ascents" implies to me that this Sherburne fella is saying they
depend on these techniques to successfully deliver their music. I find that to be inaccurate. I'm listening to live stuff as I write this, and the outstanding elements of their music to me are the melodies, complex and/or driving drum beats, vocals, and overall energy. Yes, there are snare rolls in certain songs, and others reach a notable crescendo, but what live show of just about any style doesn't utilize similar techniques to bring more energy to the performance?
"Goddam Led Zeppelin with their endless guitar and drum solos" 
. Yeah, they used guitar and drum solos, but they were there to support an already awesome song, not there for a mediocre song to lean on in order to be successful. I think that for it to be a valid criticism, they would need to be using it on the level of a Fatboy Slim or something. Criticising Underworld for snare rolls and ascents, to me, is like saying
"they're flailing around up there because they insist on doing all their shows to a 'dance' beat". "Um...okay. You do know they make dance music, right?" If you listen to any Underworld show, you hear an impressively diverse array of feels and musical approaches from song to song, yet all deliver that unique Underworld sound and energy....but the success of the shows has
never seemed to be dependent on simplistic tricks like
"piled up snare rolls and endless ascents", it's always been dependent on well made and performed music. So overall, I'd say again that Sherburne's critique is primarily dependent on subjective tastes rather than any kind of objective facts. There is some literal accuracy to the specific comment, but the intended point of the it seems to be pretty far off base to me.