The Necks

Imagens

necksbw

Ouça, compre ou compartilhe

Comprar

Comprar - Amazon Amazon Mais opções de compra
  • Download digital
  • Amazon Amazon
  • 7digital 7digital
  • iTunes iTunes
  • Mídia física
  • Amazon Amazon Pesquisar
  • eBay eBay Pesquisar
  • 158.830
    scrobbles
  • 15.086
    ouvintes

Tags

Tags de todos os usuários

Mais tags

Biografia

Ainda não temos uma descrição para este artista. Gostaria de ajudar?

Principais álbuns

Eventos

Adicionar evento

Tendência musical

15.086ouvintes no total
158.830scrobbles acumulados
Tendência de ouvintes recentes:

Comece a fazer scrobble e acompanhe o histórico de suas músicas

Os usuários da Last.fm fazem scrobble das músicas que ouvem no iTunes, Spotify, Rdio e em mais de 200 outros players de músicas

Crie um perfil na Last.fm

Caixa de mensagens

Deixe um comentário. Faça login na Last.fm ou registre-se.

  • dr_bun

    havnt heard that due to it being a bit pricey...

    21 Mai 23h15 Responder

  • RyszardDedukuje

    Athenaeum, Bush, Quay and Raab is by far their best.

    20 Mai 12h53 Responder

  • dr_bun

    also love silerwater, aquatic and aether

    8 Mai 19h18 Responder

  • zarqu

    Tough call between Drive By, Hanging Gardens and Chemist. Although I really love the meaty piano on SIlent Night's Black.

    7 Mai 11h31 Responder

  • dr_bun

    or rather drive by then chemist

    15 Abr 16h50 Responder

  • dr_bun

    best album? i say maybe drive by or chemist...

    11 Abr 0h14 Responder

  • JBThazard

    lol @ ad hominems, calm down pessimistic tour, we are not 12 year olds.

    8 Abr 0h07 Responder

  • 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.

    29 Mar 12h44 Responder

  • Ackibear

    Saw these guys last night for the first time, amazing twin set, their recorded releases only scratch the surface of their true sound.

    23 Mar 17h05 Responder

  • 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.

    9 Mar 7h31 Responder

  • 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.

    20 Fev 19h21 Responder

  • 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?

    9 Fev 15h18 Responder

  • 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.

    9 Jan 4h35 Responder

  • 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.

    9 Jan 4h30 Responder

  • BoothsBullet

    if you like the necks, you might like my music, long-form loop-based improvisation! http://willbrant.bandcamp.com/album/loree-way

    4 Jan 14h05 Responder

  • Dips_Me_Lid

    Music for dark rooms.

    19 Out 2012 Responder

  • Itochan60

    I tried this band, I really really did...but I just ended up bored after about 20 minutes in to a track.

    21 Set 2012 Responder

  • 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.

    27 Ago 2012 Responder

  • 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.

    26 Ago 2012 Responder

  • 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.

    24 Ago 2012 Responder
    • Todas as 122 mensagens

Principais ouvintes