Rose Hill Drive
tbmshark -- Mon, 06/16/2008 - 15:09
Rose Hill Drive is a relatively unheard of band, they've been together for four or five years, but nobody knows about them and I want to know why. They are blues/classic rock-type band in a similar mold to Drive by Truckers, Black Keys, etc. The raw power and organic sound of their music rivals the Black Keys and the soulful bluesy emotion and tone of guitarist Daniel Sproul's solos not only put DBT to shame, but rival the likes of Clapton, Page, and Stevie Ray. Also, many successful rock bands have talented musicians at guitar, bass, drums, etc. but overlook the crucial element of vocals. RHD's vocalist, Jake Sproul, sings with a hollow, ripping vibrato tone the likes of which I have never heard and he nails every note with the alacrity and range of a well trained acapella singer (all the while wielding a Fender bass with the skill and technicallity that would have your average four-notes-per-song bassist exiting stage left with a trail of salty tears).
Their second album comes out June 24 on Vinyl and CD. To tide you over here's a sample of a live show, where they really shine.
Some favorites of mine: Cross the Line, Sneak Out, Showdown.
http://www.archive.org/details/RHD2008-05-08..flac
A general philosophy note on music: Part of why RHD may not be popular is that people listen to their songs (or any songs for that matter) and if they don't hear the same three chords and the same riffs they've been hearing in popular music for all their lives, their minds close and they tell themselves they don't like it.
Also of note on that archive site, Rose Hill plays the entire Band of Gypsies live. Not great recording quality, but the music is at least as enjoyable as the original.
http://www.archive.org/details/rhd2006-12-31.nt4.flac16
I don't have any Rose Hill Drive, so let me ask: are you saying they repeat different chords than others, or that they are less repetitive than others? I ask, because Alan Taffel started a thread here on a sort of classical-style development in rock song writing:
http://forums.avguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=2316
I've been investigating, and I think this is a big differentiator between stuff I like and stuff I don't.
Apparently Pete Townshend loves these guys:
First, study these photos of the band "whose members somehow all manage to look like the last known photograph of Duane Allman," according to Rolling Stone.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/13883400/rolling_stones_10_artist...
Then watch this:
http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/--157370716
"The raw power and organic sound of their music rivals the Black Keys and the soulful bluesy emotion and tone of guitarist Daniel Sproul's solos not only put DBT to shame, but rival the likes of Clapton, Page, and Stevie Ray."
Whoa. I almost would have to guess that claim comes from someone employed by the band.
With all due respect, I'm not buying the statement. Here's why.
First off, the statement strikes me as ironic given that RHD are recycling the music of all of the proven and time-tested musicians you listed--and many more that you didn't name. As far as DBT goes, I don't think they've ever been trying to put anyone to shame with guitar solos; that's not what DBT is about so I don't understand the comparison. However, I do think it hits upon the major differences between RHD and the other artists you name. While better than their granola peers, RHD seem to be classic/boogie rock's answer to the tidal wave of neo-hippie and mountain jam bands that can play notes, wank solos, and endlessly noodle complex passages "perfectly" but have never written a good song in their career.
Understand that I'm not denying RHD the song factor or core appeal. I'm not saying they are a bad band in any way. What I am saying is that they aren't all that and are lacking in originality. In many ways, they remind me of 2006-hype-of-the-year Wolfmother; I have more respect for RHD than Wolfmother in that the former is trying to make a name for itself rather than use the media and a big label's pocketbook to do it for them. Yet when evaluating a band, particularly a newish one, you've gotta consult the history book and get some context. A short list of the RHD fakebook:
Deep Purple. Black Oak Arkansas. Foghat. Zeppelin. T-Rex. Thin Lizzy. Robin Trower. Mott the Hoople. Grand Funk. Cactus. Cream (pre-cash-it-in reunion). Even Raging Slab.
All far superior. RHD is young and could evolve. But for now, they're dredging far too much from their influences and passing it off as their own.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
I think the thread was started with a comment about how RHD sounds, not whether they are original. Which raises the interesting question of whether originality is that important? When I go to the store to buy a bottle of wine, I'm not concerned first and foremost with originality, I'm concerned with quality. Why can't I have music I like? If innovation helps, fine.
Now, if as you say (I haven't heard these guys), they haven't written a good song, that's another matter in my book.
The original post went far beyond describing the band's sound. Read it and see; the post compared them to proven names and cited their abilities as on the level of proven greats. And that in itself invokes the principle of originality, which is crucial in evaluating any jazz or rock artist; classical is different due to the fact that most of the releases are interpretations.
Also, please check what I wrote again: I didn't say RHD didn't write decent songs; I said that their granola jam-band brethren did not.
If originality isn't at least part of the equation, why bother? You might as well listen to tribute bands if that is the case. In other words, if you are playing music and putting your own name on it as yours, then it has to be somewhat different. I'm not saying reinvent-the-wheel different. But I am saying you can't just go take other artists' riffs, structures, grooves, and melodies and call them your own. My point was to show that RHD are nowhere near the level at which they were described, and that context, history and perspective are all very important to keep in mind.
As for the wine comparison, I'm not sure I get it. Wine and music are apples and oranges to me, and I don't know enough about wine to enter a discussion about similar merlots or the like.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
This is probably hard to discuss, but stick with me for a second. Here's one way it makes sense to me. I have a recording of Mahler's Fifth Symphony, with Ricardo Chailly conducting the Concertgebow. I really like this recording, and not just because Decca did a great job with the sound. Chailly has an interpretation of Mahler that is emotionally moving. I assume that, in large measure, is because he got very close to what Mahler had in mind. In my "I'm just a software developer" mind, I have a hard time saying this disc is great because it is innovative (I don't even know - its the only Mahler 5th I listen to). But I think it meets a reasonable definition of great. So, the two factors (innovation or originality and greatness) seem to me not to be the same.
I'm not much into traditional jazz, but it seems to me that this sort of thing (great interpretation, not great songwriting) exists there.
Now we move to original songwriters and bands. I happen to like the bluegrass artist Jerry Douglas. But I don't think he is very innovative, although he does write some nice original material. I like him because he is a great player. Is that so wrong? Similar deal with Bonnie Raitt and a host of other singer/songwriters.
When I read the original post, my sense was that we were talking about great players and good songs.
Now I also like Dylan and Philip Glass and John Zorn and Miles Davis. I'm no expert, but they seem innovative to me. Innovation isn't either bad or good in my mind; it might be thought of as a means to an end. But one could argue that the relentless insistence on innovation as the highest and best and even only good has damaged many an art form, starting with painting. Music, because it is so easily reproduced won't suffer that fate, of course.
Discman, fair enough, I hear you. I think that classical largely differs from rock in the interpretive sense; reviewing those fields involves asking/answering different types of questions and using separate parameters. It's one of the many reasons they are very different from each other as music. But I get what you're saying.
I like your Douglas citation; I agree that he isn't innovative but writes good material and is an excellent musician. But Douglas, to me, can lean on his influences without completely cribbing from them. I don't think RHD is there yet. And my original post was just to respond to some rather hyperbolic claims. Seriously, saying a band's playing is on par with Page, et al. is a rather major statement. I intentionally listed a bunch of other artists whose music the band is, well, not only echoing but almost duplicating. I think Douglas, and hundreds of other musicians who are not necessarily innovative, nonetheless have a degree of separation between being simply derivative and offering at least a fresh take/extension of what already exists.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
Post new comment