My favorite part of that movie is when all the interviewed musicians are talking about The Stone Roses’ 1990 Spike Island concert, and how it felt like there was something magical in the air at that show, a landmark moment signaling a sea change in youth culture at the time. And then the camera cuts to Noel, who says: “It was a shit gig.” My buddy and I have been laughing about that for years now.
Alright, I’ve missed this band twice now at festivals because they played early in the day and I didn’t have my shit together to make it in by that time. No more. This is happening.
According to an NME article that I read, it was a video saved onto his hard drive.
Kinda surprised me that that’s a criminal charge; I mean, just google search “Mr. Hands”……. actually, don’t do that.
1. Those are Carreras, asshole!
2. Perhaps you should reduce your porn intake.
you’re a brave man, rubjon.
The Surgarhill Gang example wouldn’t work – copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. So, you can’t claim protected authorship of an entire genre. The law functions this way because we want to incentivize creation, but not stifle it at the same time.
As for the wheel, I’d note only that patent protection benefits society in ways beyond incentivizing innovation. For one, when you publish a patent, you disclose the idea to the world at large – and we wouldn’t want people inventing useful things like wheels and then just keeping it a secret, right? Also, once the patent is published the clock starts ticking insofar as the creator’s exclusivity goes, so that in turn creates a big push to commercialize whatever it is we’re talking about, to get it out there in the marketplace. So in your example, perhaps we would end up spending 20 years with one party having exclusive control over wheel manufacturing (that doesn’t mean, however, that he couldn’t authorize others to produce), but the trade-off would be that a hugely helpful innovation is unleashed upon the world.
I don’t get this. Are they going with the “cute slut next door” routine by virtue of merely wearing clothes that aren’t straight off Katy Perry’s stylist’s rack? Wouldn’t that make virtually all females in your world (ones that stand on a stage, anyway) “cute sluts next door?”
God forbid some women write some songs and dress like they’re in a band.
Ha, sounds just like me. I remember being 10 or 11 when this was big, hanging out with my friend from down the street, and chilling in his room playing Warcraft 2 while bumping “Gin and Juice.” Just two prepubescent, suburb-dwelling white kids (children, literally), listening to tales about all the drama in the LBC. We really had no idea what we were listening to, but man, did we love that profanity.
Protip: the people complaining aren’t fans.
They don’t even appear in their own video? What egomaniacs; too good to even show their faces to us plebians.
I liked the part where he wrote that if it’s not early-to-mid 90s indie rock affiliated, then you’re a stupid, stupid idiot for liking it and your taste sucks real bad.
I’m not buying this whole “indie roots” thing. Arcade Fire were a true indie band for what, 2 years? Since then they’ve spent 7 as Pitchfork’s little darlings, and 3 as full-blown, arena-filling superstars. So it’s not like we’re talking about Fugazi here; I don’t think AF owes you or anyone else an anti-rock star ethos or punk-indebted spirit of inclusivity. Sure, they’ve aped NMH somewhat and dress the part, but that doesn’t mean the actual roots are there. If they are there, they’re quite small; Arcade Fire is indie rock like U2 is post-punk.
That said, I fully agree that the band is moderately poseur-ish (oh snap, is that a synonym for “affected?” Hey, turns out I do know what that word means!), on the merits expressed above. But being a bit of a poseur doesn’t necessarily make someone an elitist, or a materialist, or any of those other nice things you said. And that’s all I was really getting at in the first place. I think you’re making huge assumptions from the “dress nice” recommendation – do you seriously believe that the idea was premised on exclusivity, i.e. keeping the undesirable “dorks” out of their concerts? And besides, if anyone has the money to go to one of these big arena shows, I’m virtually 100% certain they’ve got some dress clothes hanging up somewhere.
Anyway, I’m sorry that you’ve had to bear the pain of Arcade Fire giving the public an inaccurate perception of indie rock; clearly it’s bummed you out. But again, I say it was inevitable. Genres get popular –> certain groups ride the media machine to the top –> “old school” fans cry inauthenticity. Circle of life.
Second paragraph, first sentence – NOT really grasping. An edit button would be nice, Stereogum.
Not quite sure I get what you’re saying there big daddy. Well, as to the mainstream media, I actually do – but as “indie rock” became a more and more popular genre over the years, it was inevitable that the media would eventually cherry-pick one or two bands and christen them the torch-bearers. That’s just history repeating itself.
But regarding Arcade Fire themselves, I’m really grasping why you think the band, in an act of unabashed egomania, has appointed themselves the great saviors of indie rock. Frankly, I’d be shocked if they even considered themselves part of that genre, because they’re anything but. Perhaps I’m missing something; did they make public statements to that effect? Also, what makes you figure that they have a “group personality order?” That’s some pretty strong shit-slinging right there. Are these accusations fact-based, or are you just throwing them out there because you resent Arcade Fire’s music/popularity?
I gotta be honest, I strongly suspect that it’s the latter. I’ve seen you rant about Arcade Fire before, and rarely does your reasoning ever go beyond them hating them for having a large fanbase and a sound that’s more Springsteen than Dinosaur Jr (“inauthentic” per your terms). And hey, it’s not your cup of tea, whatever. But I fail to see how that makes them materialistic, elitist egomaniacs with a group personality disorder.
Fact-wise (and removed from their music), I know that Wayne Coyne said they were pricks and that they asked fans to throw on a suit jacket for some arena shows. They won a Grammy and went with some fairly over-the-top marketing for the follow-up album. Is there stuff I don’t know about?
Just wanted to drop a plug for my favorite, “Tearing In My Heart.” Great band, and one I haven’t listened to in quite a while. Perhaps that should change after work today.
That’s all well and good, but what’s your point? What are these stereotypes you’re claiming Arcade Fire reinforce? That hipsters like to play dress up in old-timey clothes?
Yeah, but again, the Halloween thing. An event is being thrown where it’s recommended that you dress up. If you make the effort to attend, you’re implicitly going along with that recommendation. Of course, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to – but if you end up feeling awkward, well, who’s fault is that? You can’t really get mad at Arcade Fire for trying to do something cool, when it was you decided to buy tickets but didn’t want to go along with what they’re shooting for.
Similarly, if you go to a pro sporting event in regular street clothes and feel awkward, do you blame the team for that? If you wear a t-shirt and jeans to a gala and feel horribly underdressed, isn’t that one on you? I don’t really see how this is any different.
I see this as being similar to going out and hitting the bars on Halloween weekend. Do you *have* to dress up? No, but it’s gonna be a lot more fun if you do.
Yeah, they were great.
I had that same experience (except I was the proverbial girl) almost 10 years ago at a Blood Brothers show. Ever since, I’ve been keenly aware of which shows I might not want to be near the front of the stage at – Death Grips included, at a festival this last summer. I like music, but getting hit in the face isn’t my cup of tea.
I think you’d change your tune if someone blatantly stole your creative work, passed it off as their own, and got all the credit and/or a nice payday from it. Of course, the above issue is quite different from a copyright violation at its most basic, but I think it’s fairly clear why those rights are important. No IP rights would be a big disincentive to create.
just saw ‘em – the new songs were great live! “let me show you love” and “we are explorers” were particularly memorable, at least for me. and from what i remember, the setlist was pretty heavy on in ghost colours as well… very well could be the case for you. enjoy!
you must be new here.
threatens to sue for damage to reputation
uses anonymous online username
something doesn’t make sense here.