[Rob Instigator]

i think some of you are missing the point of the original article.

bands, like all creative endeavors, take time to mature, and need to eb nurtured, by the members, by loyal early fans, and yes, sometimes, by a record label that will let them make some mistakes and develop their sound througha couple of recordings.

what good is exposure when the exposure does nothing but quicken the death of the band?

in today's world a band can get exposure and be known in the underground before they have even played any live gigs, which causes a very immediate stress upon the fellowship of a band.

It is just strange. imagie if everyone had jumped on dinosaur's jock about their first album, hyped them to death, used and disposed of them, before they even had the chance to make Yr Living all over me and Bug etc.

that is esentially what happens with these bands, and us, a consumers of the music, end up stuck with a lot of half-reasoned songs, and half-developed bands, who break up before ever creating anything truly singular and interesting.

just my two cents

[pbradley]

Its strange that Sonic Youth has a history of slow hype generated over a number of albums and myspace promo'ed indie whatever bands record four songs and get a slot on Jools Holland. Feverish obsession with novelty.

[Rob Instigator]

feverish obsession with novelty


that exactly describes the zeitgeist of today

in every respect

it is because the avalilability of instant information in the internet is still fetishized for that and that alone, not for the content that is delivered.

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by Cantankerous

no. they need exposure. the actual music press (meaning NME, rolling stone, spin, etc) doesn't do shit for these bands.
they're too busy writing stories about bobby gillespie and iggy pop and sonic youth

IE hanging onto the past

i dont agree. the NME is constantly finding these really bland bands and hailing their mediocre album as the greatest thing since definatly maybe which was the best thing since the queen is dead which was the best thing since the kinks. like when the arctic monkeys released their album and then the NME released a top ten british albums of all time and the arctice MONKEYS WERE #5!!!!!!!
the papers are about overhyping smalltime players that fit in with the socialy acceptable misfits.
i think it all has to do with the grunge outburst in the early 90's. thats when truly underground bands started getting exposure and hype, and a lot of them were bands that were doing really interesting things and not just generic rock shit. so since then mainstream radio and whatever media they decide to spread their artificial hype on has accepted slightly harsher music than your average garden variety top 40 hit band. and because of that anyband with a guitar, regardless of talent is swept up in a rush of headlines and top ten lists, and the underground has turned into a place that really belongs to itself. because there are not many underground bands that can get radio play, like NNCK wolf eyes.... even animal collective, as poppy the may be to our ears, are way to out there to be accepted by the masses....


i hope my ramblings had some form of coherency to them.

[pbradley]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...tch_black_kids

[atari 2600]

You're in the buzz bin now, Black Kids.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

i dont agree. the NME is constantly finding these really bland bands and hailing their mediocre album as the greatest thing since definatly maybe which was the best thing since the queen is dead which was the best thing since the kinks. like when the arctic monkeys released their album and then the NME released a top ten british albums of all time and the arctice MONKEYS WERE #5!!!!!!!
the papers are about overhyping smalltime players that fit in with the socialy acceptable misfits.
i think it all has to do with the grunge outburst in the early 90's. thats when truly underground bands started getting exposure and hype, and a lot of them were bands that were doing really interesting things and not just generic rock shit. so since then mainstream radio and whatever media they decide to spread their artificial hype on has accepted slightly harsher music than your average garden variety top 40 hit band. and because of that anyband with a guitar, regardless of talent is swept up in a rush of headlines and top ten lists, and the underground has turned into a place that really belongs to itself. because there are not many underground bands that can get radio play, like NNCK wolf eyes.... even animal collective, as poppy the may be to our ears, are way to out there to be accepted by the masses....


i hope my ramblings had some form of coherency to them.

I commandeered the steroe at a party of young hip or sorta hip wanna-be's, and played Peacebone, and NO ONE DUG IT

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

feverish obsession with novelty


that exactly describes the zeitgeist of today

in every respect

it is because the avalilability of instant information in the internet is still fetishized for that and that alone, not for the content that is delivered.

This 'feverish obsession with novelty' isn't exclusive to new teen generation though, is it? I'm sure there were a million 50s doo-wop bands signed & hyped on the basis of being merely a doo-wop band.

And the Black Kids, in spite of the hype, have still fallen off the radar of most people. Certainly myself. It strikes me as a bit mountain-out-of-a-molehill, this article. Bands that aren't popular instantly aren't going to stop being bands. Or, for that matter, every band that seems like they're 'suddenly getting big' have usually been plying their trade for yonks. I'm surprised recently that Fuck Buttons seem, to some people, like the 'big hyped new thing' because, from my perspective, having seen them play to somewhere in the region of 20 people, they have worked their dicks off to get where they are now. Of course, if you're not me, or from their locale, then they're just suddenly being hyped, but that hype represents masses of effort and sacrifice on their part - effort and sacrifice that the majority of people in bands aren't willing to do. By proxy: I'm sure this would apply to any number of bands.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

i think some of you are missing the point of the original article.

bands, like all creative endeavors, take time to mature, and need to eb nurtured, by the members, by loyal early fans, and yes, sometimes, by a record label that will let them make some mistakes and develop their sound througha couple of recordings.

what good is exposure when the exposure does nothing but quicken the death of the band?

in today's world a band can get exposure and be known in the underground before they have even played any live gigs, which causes a very immediate stress upon the fellowship of a band.

It is just strange. imagie if everyone had jumped on dinosaur's jock about their first album, hyped them to death, used and disposed of them, before they even had the chance to make Yr Living all over me and Bug etc.

that is esentially what happens with these bands, and us, a consumers of the music, end up stuck with a lot of half-reasoned songs, and half-developed bands, who break up before ever creating anything truly singular and interesting.

just my two cents

I got the point of the original article very well, Rob. The bands the dude who wrote the article is referring to are a waste of time to start with. If your heart is in the right place, you don't fucking depend on journalists for your artistic growth, or else you're a cheat and a scumbag.


End of the story.

Originally Posted by pbradley

Its strange that Sonic Youth has a history of slow hype generated over a number of albums and myspace promo'ed indie whatever bands record four songs and get a slot on Jools Holland. Feverish obsession with novelty.

Sonic Youth got where they are not because of ''slow hype'', they got there because quality was a priority for them as a band since they started.

[demonrail666]

The problem as I see it isn't blogs, or any general decline in standards either with music or amongst listeners. It's about types of blogs and types of music and types of listeners. Fortunately the worst of each tend to find each other.

I personally think it's safe to say that rock music (be it 'indie'/'alternative' or otherwise) has been fairly dead in the water for at least the past decade or so. The enormous rise of a band like Radiohead is surely the product of a similar realisation amongst those 'indie' fans that accept this fact but don't want to stray too far from their comfort zone. The same could be said for the emergence of genres like Nu-Rave and before that, the elevation of gig-friendly 'techno' by the likes of Orbital or The Prodigy. This is 'innovation' for people that crave it, but appear to fear its consequences.

Those people have their blogs (and their magazines) but that isn't to say that blogs are a problem in themselves. Blogs like the ones being discussed here, and the average indie fan are like dealers and junkies in that they tend to stick together - which at least keeps them away from those of us with better things to do than trying to find the new Pixies/Fall/SY/Radiohead, etc.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

The problem as I see it isn't blogs, or any general decline in standards either with music or amongst listeners. It's about types of blogs and types of music and types of listeners. Fortunately the worst of each tend to find each other.

I personally think it's safe to say that rock music (be it 'indie'/'alternative' or otherwise) has been fairly dead in the water for at least the past decade or so. The enormous rise of a band like Radiohead is surely the product of a similar realisation amongst those 'indie' fans that accept this fact but don't want to stray too far from their comfort zone. The same could be said for the emergence of genres like Nu-Rave and before that, the elevation of gig-friendly 'techno' by the likes of Orbital or The Prodigy. This is 'innovation' for people that crave it, but appear to fear its consequences.

Those people have their blogs (and their magazines) but that isn't to say that blogs are a problem in themselves. Blogs like the ones being discussed here, and the average indie fan are like dealers and junkies in that they tend to stick together - which at least keeps them away from those of us with better things to do than trying to find the new Pixies/Fall/SY/Radiohead, etc.

10+ for some points raised in you post.

People who complain about nothing new happening get on my tits, though. There is a lot of music produced that has no precedent, it's just that not everything that is musical is pop or rock. Let's all get over that, shall we?

[the ikara cult]

Old style Print Magazines and the "Major" internet sites share one common interest; to reach their target audience, and their advertising (where they get their meat and potatoes) reflects that. Therefore the publication needs to get people to keep buying the magazine/coming to the site.

With that in mind, the more "trendy" end of the market has a particular interest in being culturally significant, as thats what the readership wants from their purchase/visit. Alot of the time its nothing that could be considered objective journalism, the hot new thing will build the reputation, which will secure the pubications future.

Similarly, Observer music monthly for example (The most unworthy piece of shit ever, in my opinion) needs to get its market locked on to justify its existence.

I think thats why objectivity goes out the window once people start making a living through this sort of thing, anyway.

[Rob Instigator]

The "feverish obnsession with novelty" describes our entire culture, our entire society, from young to old, I was not just talking about teens and music.

ZEITGEIST PEOPLE!

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

The "feverish obnsession with novelty" describes our entire culture, our entire society, from young to old, I was not just talking about teens and music.

ZEITGEIST PEOPLE!

I think this is largely true. Although equally, I think it's safe to say that this had led to a backlash of people that savour types of culture which explicitely reject it. This could itself be thought of along the lines of novelty: the novelty of tradition and certainty in a world of glitter and transience, which can be safely indulged in for a period before returning to the lighter relief of the new-for-new's sake.

Atari said in a much earlier post that people of a certain generation, which he dubbed 'generation sucks', no longer have the critical faculties required to properly evaluate any culture. And here I think is the real problem. Whatever is put in front of such people, whatever its inherent value, the outcome will be that it merely becomes an empty sensation (or at best a pointlessly subjective one) simply because the audience lack the tools of proper engagement. Such a thing happened to me on another thread when Glice posted up a series of different versions of the same pieces of music. While I could tell the difference, I didn't have the education to properly say which was superior. Of course, some would say that there is no 'better' version: that it's simply what you prefer. But that approach leads to the kind of populist fascism that dominates so much culture day. Of course certain versions were superior. I could've argued against the common orthodoxy which makes some consider certain pieces over others but, again, my lack of knowledge regarding classical music prohibited me from doing that too.

What i'm saying here is that a quest for novelty is a basic symptom of an embracing of relative values. The whole 'if you like it, then fine' syndrome, which allows someone to say that they believe Tarantino to be a better film-maker than, say, Godard. The correct response to this should be, you are absolutely wrong, but instead they're usually reassured by the aforementioned mantra of 'if you like it, then fine'. Because ultimately a quest for significance in the banal will lead only to a series of banal experiences, it is no wonder that people skip quickly from one thing to another. The fact that when they finally do come up against something of true value they won't be able to recognise it, and will probably just reduce it to the same level as that which they flirted with earlier, is the real cultural crisis of our time.

[Rob Instigator]

I think that people have lost that faculty because we are in the middle of the 20-40 years of unprecendented development of a single worldwide "culture" as far as what is "popular culture" as opposed to religious, ethnic, regional culture.

[demonrail666]

I dunno, I think it's a symptom of the fact that nobody feels able to tell someone they're wrong anymore for fear of being mowed down as some kind of a taste fascist.

[Rob Instigator]

relativism has pervaded our life

Originally Posted by demonrail666

What i'm saying here is that a quest for novelty is a basic symptom of an embracing of relative values. The whole 'if you like it, then fine' syndrome, which allows someone to say that they believe Tarantino to be a better film-maker than, say, Godard. The correct response to this should be, you are absolutely wrong, but instead they're usually reassured by the aforementioned mantra of 'if you like it, then fine'. Because ultimately a quest for significance in the banal will lead only to a series of banal experiences, it is no wonder that people skip quickly from one thing to another. The fact that when they finally do come up against something of true value they won't be able to recognise it, and will probably just reduce it to the same level as that which they flirted with earlier, is the real cultural crisis of our time.

I'm not sure if this can be really applied to what happens in reality. I think that often people are capable of recognising what's good for them within the means at their disposal.

Being able to value one's work is not necessarily something that is going to give or take that work of art any obejective value. The role of a music critic should be more that of being a diffuser and contextualiser of music, at least in the context of popular music of the last 5/6 decades.