Enter Sandman
August 23, 2006 10:52 PM   Subscribe

Rockabye Baby "transforms timeless rock songs into beautiful instrumental lullabies." It's never too early to introduce your little one to the angsty minor chords of Radiohead, Pink Floyd, The Cure, Metallica, or Nirvana, among others. Reminiscent of the previously posted Nippaz with Attitude, but with less piano and more glockenspiel. The Coldplay songs seem especially well done. via dooce
posted by onlyconnect (32 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
Coldplay already puts me to sleep.
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 10:57 PM on August 23, 2006


Sounds a lot better than CribRock: Full Metal Diaper.
posted by Monstrous Moonshine at 11:13 PM on August 23, 2006


About the songs on Full Metal Diaper, the blurb sez: "ex-metalheads will love them." I guess once you're a parent you're automatically an ex metalhead. That's all for the better, though, of course...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 11:19 PM on August 23, 2006


So...If you settle down and end up hating music, you get offered a Jaymar?
posted by sourwookie at 11:55 PM on August 23, 2006


Fucking brilliant!
posted by strawberryviagra at 1:07 AM on August 24, 2006


Their version of 'Enter Sandman' is darker and more disturbing than the original.
posted by oh pollo! at 2:06 AM on August 24, 2006


Their Brian Eno album euthanized my cat.
posted by pracowity at 2:37 AM on August 24, 2006


Wow. I want to concieve a child now. I wonder if I could get away with giving these as gifts or it'd just be one of those, "the hell is this?" gifts

I love the Tool covers best.
posted by trinarian at 2:43 AM on August 24, 2006


a sure sign i'm fully into my 30s: this makes me wish i had a kid i could buy these for. very cool.
posted by ab3 at 3:01 AM on August 24, 2006


They sound like mediocre fan-made midi files that you'd find embedded on a Geocities page.
posted by D.C. at 3:25 AM on August 24, 2006


A lot of of the tracks still seemed to retain an air of brooding menace. Some seemed to acquire one. But then again so does "Ring a Roses".
posted by rongorongo at 3:37 AM on August 24, 2006


Whoa yeah, rongorongo...I still recall the cold chills I got when my HS English Lit teacher explained the "Ring Around the Rosy" lyrics to us....
posted by pax digita at 4:08 AM on August 24, 2006


Oh, and

a sure sign I'm fully into my 40s: Who's this band their covering, anyway? I don't recognize them or any of their songs.

Fun idea, though. I think the logical conclusion of this was a band in the 80s called Pianosaurus -- if you ever find the CD Groovy Neighborhood, give it a listen. It's pretty straight-ahead rock music played on children's toy instruments.
posted by pax digita at 4:13 AM on August 24, 2006


Am I mistaken? Do none of these include any vocals? I always thought lulabyes were a primarily vocal art.

Oddly the Floyd stuff doesn't sound much different than the real stuff.
posted by Gungho at 4:13 AM on August 24, 2006


Love the Led Zeppelin cover art.
posted by punkfloyd at 4:16 AM on August 24, 2006


They sound like mediocre fan-made midi files that you'd find embedded on a Geocities page.

Exactly. Many of these seem really slapped-together, possibly by someone using a sequencer for the first time.
posted by uncleozzy at 4:22 AM on August 24, 2006


Cool idea, but most of these have an eerie quality. Not sure how soothing these would be to a baby.

Could the Bjork covers possibly sound any different? :)
posted by itchylick at 4:33 AM on August 24, 2006


They sound like mediocre fan-made midi files that you'd find embedded on a Geocities page.

Doubly so for "Smells Like Teen Spirit." They probably are just midi files downloaded via a Google search, then played through a medium-quality sound module.
posted by rxrfrx at 4:36 AM on August 24, 2006


Am I mistaken? Do none of these include any vocals? I always thought lulabyes were a primarily vocal art.

You remember the words and are encouraged to sing to your baby while these instrumentals play quietly in the background. Most of them work well. Some not so much (Pink Floyd's "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" particularly problematic)
posted by hal9k at 4:40 AM on August 24, 2006


Look, playing a song slower on a xylophone does not make it a Lullaby, and it certainly doesn't make it something I'd want to hear if I was a baby.

This is for parents who are selfish enough to want to continue listening to their own music and stupid enough to think that somehow having it labelled as a lullaby makes it more appropriate to play.

Two choices, both of them perfectly okay:
1) Play the music you've always loved. There's nothing that says that babies can't become used to other kinds of music.
2) Play music that really is for babies/kids.

Oh, and the amazing out-of-left-field alternative: sing to your child your own damn self.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:55 AM on August 24, 2006


Oh, and the beatles songs make EXCELLENT lullabies without having to do jack shit to them.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:56 AM on August 24, 2006


You know what I'd like to hear? I'd like to hear somebody come up with a rap performance that works as a lullaby. I bet that's flatly impossible.


slight derail:

Pablo Casals playing Bach cello suites worked amazingly well as lullaby instrumentals -- I guess all that low-freq sound was soothing. The Brandenburg concertos and the orchestral suites, not so much -- too lively and stimulating, but those worked great for weekday morning wakeups.
posted by pax digita at 5:37 AM on August 24, 2006


I'm honestly curious -- what is the deal with music meant for kids? My parents never made a point to listen to kids' music -- it was just the radio, like anything else. Why is it selfish to listen to something other than Raffi?

I mean, I understand there would be an industry when there's money to be made, but I have no clue why people would shell out money for music that by all accounts annoys adults just because they have young children. Can someone explain it to me?
posted by sugarfish at 6:30 AM on August 24, 2006


I mean, I understand there would be an industry when there's money to be made, but I have no clue why people would shell out money for music that by all accounts annoys adults just because they have young children. Can someone explain it to me?

I'll try: They aren't buying it for themselves, or listening to it themselves, its for their kids. I know that seems really obvious, but so does your question. "Why would an adult buy a transforming robot toy for their elementary school kid, instead of getting them a GPS or a moleskine planner or the like? Why do adults shell out money for toys that adults find uninteresting just because they have small children?"

My parents didn't get me any of those Raffi or what-have-you records when I was a kid, and I didn't want them. But they did buy me various spoken word storytelling readalong book/record things, and I loved 'em, even though by all accounts my parents probably wouldn't have. And when I asked for a Weird Al Yankovic tape for my birthday, they got me one, even though they don't like Weird Al Yankovic. That's the way gift-buying works: you buy something the recipient would like, even if you yourself wouldn't like it.
posted by Bugbread at 7:31 AM on August 24, 2006


Seriously, what's really the difference between this and Muzak? Both are slightly kitschy, but essentially lame.

For something in the same vein as the first link, but done better, try The Section String Quartet's Strung Out on OK Computer.
posted by oraknabo at 7:59 AM on August 24, 2006


A lot of of the tracks still seemed to retain an air of brooding menace. Some seemed to acquire one. But then again so does "Ring a Roses".
posted by rongorongo at 6:37 AM EST on August 24 [+] [!]


Whoa yeah, rongorongo...I still recall the cold chills I got when my HS English Lit teacher explained the "Ring Around the Rosy" lyrics to us....
posted by pax digita at 7:08 AM EST on August 24 [+] [!]


Please check out this link before you belive the death and disease explanation of those lyrics.
posted by piratebowling at 8:03 AM on August 24, 2006


Thanks for the link re "Ring Around the Rosy" piratebowling - I have to admit I would be disappointed if too many of my beliefs in sinister nursery rhyme origins turned out to be fanciful.
posted by rongorongo at 8:35 AM on August 24, 2006


This is a great idea because as the rawk-star 'rents start to get older and find it harder to enjoy the music their kids listen to (no matter how hard they try), they could conceivably listen to future editions in this series in an effort to connect with their troubled teens.
posted by idontlikewords at 9:05 AM on August 24, 2006


Coldplay is already titty-baby music.

What's wrong with just playing real records for your kids? Is it supposed to be bad for them or something? Children's records are pretty awful, and my son hasn't shown much interest in them -- although a few months ago he went through a Laurie Berkner phase; parents will know what I mean.

I don't want to bum out a toddler, so I'm not gonna put him through Thom Yorke's record or a lot of Nick Cave, but there's an endless supply of terrific music that kids naturally love. Count Basie, Louis Armstrong, Bob Wills & the Texas Playboys, Johnny Cash, Beach Boys, Elvis, all kinds of bebop (Monk or Charlie Parker makes kids dance extra-crazy), rocksteady ... tons of stuff that's fun, melodic, interesting.

The only kids' CD I felt good about was the Baby Einstein Bach & Mozart collections. It sounds like a fancy music box & was great when he was very small.
posted by kenlayne at 2:29 PM on August 24, 2006


This is a great group of musicians playing pieces on toy instruments.

And this is by far our favorite album. And our one year old twins dance to it...I'm not even kidding.

Raffi is crap (except for "Bananaphone" and, really, whoever would have even heard of it if it weren't for the 'nets), but there are some great kids albums and bands out there, if you just hunt them down.

In our house, though, we listen to everything - why limit the kids to one kind of music?
posted by OhPuhLeez at 2:40 PM on August 24, 2006


Oh, and what Kenlayne said.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 2:41 PM on August 24, 2006


kenlayne writes "What's wrong with just playing real records for your kids? Is it supposed to be bad for them or something?"

My guess (and this is just a guess) is that these "blah-blah-blah played on xylophone" reworks are intended, not for children, but for newborn infants. People want to play their kids something soothing and calm (traditionally music boxes and the like were used), but adult music is considered (for whatever reason) too abrasive, hence the popularity of this stuff. As for Raffi/et al (that is, music for children, not infants), I've got no idea. I remember seeing commercials for "Greatest Children's Music Hits" type compilations on TV as a kid, and thinking "Man, that sucks". Not that I was listening to Stockhausen or Dead Kennedys or anything; Michael Jackson and Weird Al at best.
posted by Bugbread at 6:50 PM on August 24, 2006


« Older List Looks At Life Through Eyes of 18-Year Olds   |   You can't put hands on a leg... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments