Fine, fair enough. But I still don't see why "serious music fans" should only chase after what is influential and have no respect for anything of the era that isn't bleeding edge. This is why you raised the halcyon age point, correct? Modest Mouse aren't pioneering anything so why waste your time either way? Honestly I can't imagine any of the Modest Mouse fans here say that everything else new nowadays is shit, anyway. Hopefully I misunderstood your point.

Also, going after only influential music is absurd because you never know what will and will not be influential on future music, I mean what the hell? Maybe a new sound will catch on, maybe it won't.

There have been moments in the last couple years where I have been at a show enjoying myself immensely, and when I turned around, I saw every person in that room obviously enjoying themselves just as much, and that included people ranging in age and walk-of-life from teens to middle-aged record collector and various ethnicities, orientations, and gender identities. And we were all enjoying music which was diversely influenced. Therefore, I do suppose that the band would have diverse influence going forward.

Generally, bands that are diversely influenced may become diversely influential. And vice versa.....like, skapunk for instance. Whereas the first few bands to introduce ska to punk rock were hugely influential, helping usher in the enormous dub influence evident in postpunk, there was a certain evolution of skapunk which narrowed itself into oblivion after spiking the punch only minimally with an inbred strain of pop-punk and "melodic hardcore" in the early- to mid-90s. Checking back on the development of other strands of evolution tracing back to the Specials via the Pop Group and Mark Stewart + the Maffia, you would find stuff like Scorn and too many genres of techno and jungle/dnb to name half of them.

What is the most influential is the best of what's happening in any era, and that's why I would just suppose anyone who calls themselves a "serious" music fan to at least try it on for size. (And if they don't like it, just wait for the next thing, or start your own band. Hey, I account for variances in taste!)

So, what's next? Shall we argue about what I mean by "serious" or "fan"?

The age range of good bands and their audiences where I live is enormous.
Rick, you are dead on with this assessment of Thee Current Times.
Ten years ago, I couldn't stand pretty much any band from the twin cities, and for the past six years I've been curating a three-day festival every year featuring anywhere from 20-30 interesting acts from my area alone, and every year the amount of good music we have to leave off the festival due to time constraints only grows. I know it's like this in other places too.
Age feels like it matters less now than it ever has, too, which is great. Some of our "best friend bands" are nearly young enough to be our kids, and I feel zero division.

Nah, I'm evidently ruffling too many feathers with my tactless probing. Sorry for the mess.

Wait so Rick, *do* you listen to music for enjoyment, like, at all? >.>

Yes, he does.

Yeah, he name dropped the Thinking Fellers; no matter else gets said, he's the fucking man in my book.

Arguements like the one in this thread only ever seem to develop when the thread starts off about Modest Mouse, My Blloody Valentine or Flaming Lips. It always ends up with two or more people swinging their "My mind is more open than yours!" dicks at each others' faces. Peoople seem afraid to admit theyre judgemental; its not a dirty word, it means using your judgement.

As for Wavves, that album really cheered me up for a week or so, it reminds me of a noisier Grandaddy. I imagine ill dig it out again in a few weeks but its one you have to be careful not to play to death

Don't forget Animal Collective threads!

modest mouse has sucked for over a decade now..last real good album was the long drive for someone wioth nothing to talk about..i think thats the name of it.... again, just an opinion...

Eh, I really like We Were Dead but I don't care for Good News. Maybe I'm weird.

I hope you don't imagine me stroking my beard and furrowing my brow in deep concentration while analyzing every aspect of each new record I hear while comparing it against the greatest records of all time.....I do actually listen to everything for enjoyment. Even if I don't enjoy it....I try to!

That's part of growing up before the age of the self-serve/download-everything-for-free era. When I bought a new record as a kid, you can bet that I mowed a neighbor's lawn or washed someone's car or babysat someone's kid for it....so dammit, if I didn't immediately like a record I had bought, I listened and listened until it clicked, or I'd be trading it back in for store credit. In that way, I do suppose I'm a patient and more contemplative listener than what it typical in today's youth. But that doesn't mean I'm not having fun with music. I probably have more fun with music than anyone I know. (tooting my own horn there....sorry!)

I have enjoyed this thread. Well done all.

We crave your approval.

it's the yelp yelp singing.

plus too much exposure on teen dramas.

Bless you, my son.

You sound like the reason I don't have sex with 16-year-olds.

No you're not weird. We were Dead is a lot better than Good News. A lot.
An argument can be made that we're both weird for liking either album at all though.

Anyway I don't think Modest Mouse will be leaving any time soon. I think Good News was their mainstream plunge and they're turning it back around now. We were Dead was a nice step.

I don't know the band, I haven't met them etc. But over the years they've given me the impression that they like music. There are musicians out there that don't like music.

See, to my mind, a 'serious music fan' listens to very little with guitars. A 'serious music fan' listens to formal academic music (this needn't, strictly speaking, be scored). The notion of a 'bleeding edge' is pretty much a mis-nomer according to my understanding of 'serious music fan'. By this I mean a 'serious music fan' pores over scores and analyses fugues; s/he doesn't actually enjoy music. Not in terms of it being any 'edge'. I know someone who is a very serious scholar of music (he's just completed a PhD) and he almost never actually listens to music. It exists purely in the academic, so-called 'abstract' world of scores. I played him Wavves recently and he said 'there's nearly nothing here, except recording dirt. Do people actually like this music?'

This probably seems like I'm being contrary, but I only want to point out that, to a lot of people out in the real world, outside of this forum, there's a world of music in which Modest Mouse are obscure, yet-to-be-discovered - there's as many narratives to music as there are listeners. I think what pbradley's sort of saying is that there's no obligation to like one thing and thereby spend the rest of time looking for something else. Music is fun, not an obligation, and it's unfair to suggest that a restless curiosity somehow makes a person a 'better' listener (I'd negate the contrary if I could articulate it).