I read an interview where Matt said they're considering putting out another record next year as they had 30-35 songs done/partially done. Wouldn't be surprised if they did if that's the case.
Listened to the whole thing straight through today on the ride over my Ma's house. I'm absolutely floored. I've always liked The National and thought it couldn't get much better than HV (which is great but definitely has ebbs and flows). I loved this one from beginning to end. The arrangements are perfect and while there's not immediately obvious lyrical hooks, there were a couple times when I'd be listening and Matt would sing some line that just cut right through. Can't wait to see them at Barclay's in June and then at Bonnaroo a week later.
Looking forward to the album, but I'm not sold on the first song "Mosquito". I'm not sure if it was the audio or that I just really didn't like that song at all.
I'd honestly want another In Rainbows.
Felt like it found the perfect balance between Thom's more electronic sounding ideas and the full band sound of Radiohead.
I think people are more excited over the fact that new Bowie is coming rather than the single.
It's not a bad song (I'd even call it good), but definitely not his best.
I agree to a point, but the closest comparison you have is Nirvana ending prematurely. LCD was easily the band of my teenage years (turned 21 a few weeks after the final concert) and it's pretty upsetting (and ironic) that the biggest part I'll have of my formative years, musically, won't be there to mature with me.
Guess it's time to grow old with those memories.
Definitely looking forward to Foals, Vampire Weekend, Toro y Moi, and James Blake.
And here's hoping that just because the Arcade Fire album is likely out in late 2013 that they can still find their way to Coachella/Bonnaroo etc this year.
I really don't think you can omit songs like "Suzanne" and "Hallelujah" simply because they've become his most known and oft covered songs. "Hallelujah" is easily one of the best songs of Cohen's career and one of the best songs ever. I don't disagree with the choices you made; they're all lovely songs. But to omit one for it's popularity seems to be a trend with Stereogum's "Best of" lists (see "My Girls" by Animal Collective, etc).
Really, you're shooting yourself in the foot. As I said before, music is a subjective thing, same as art in all its forms. Are we gonna say Joyce was a more brilliant writer than Whitman? Or that Picasso is more beautiful than Van Gogh?
You simply can't quantify those things. You can have preference but not authority to deem one more important/better than another. I'm not saying that any era of music is equally as good as another; that's you making up an argument and telling me that I said it.
99% of musicians never made anything off record sales? Please, tell me where you're getting your info from. I never argued that musicians have, with only some exceptions, been shafted by record companies. That still pretty much exists today. But the fact remains that more people bought music then (especially physical copies) than they do now. More revenue=more money for the band, no matter how small the cut is. And the argument, again, wasn't that bands today can more easily spread their music. Obviously that's the case. But the same tool allows people to download their stuff for free. You didn't have that back in the 90s.
Please, write a book on what music you think is the best, just so I know exactly what to think when someone asks me.
The whole "music isn't as good as it used to be" argument is just fucking dumb. The "hipster"-esque class of society has always existed in different forms, as has the mainstream. The popular music that wasn't always artistically fulfilling as well as the lesser known, more "art-y" music has existed as well (those are two very broad categories so obviously there's crossovers). It's a dumb argument that everyone seems to bring up simply because people are naturally inclined to refer to the music they like as the "best". Music is subjective, there's another hole in that argument.
As for the making money aspect, if you REALLY think that the invention of the internet as both a selling platform and a distributing platform for free stuff hasn't affected profitability, you're flat-out insane. In their day, Nirvana had to deal with one person buying a CD and then giving it to a few of their friends so they could make a copy, and that was an extreme case. Today, one person can buy Grizzly Bear's latest and put it on piratebay where hundreds, if not thousands of people can download it. That's simply not a sustainable market for a smaller band.
As a college student pursuing a degree in computer engineering/minor in music, I feel this pain all too well. Music is my passion and I would love to dedicate a whole career to it. But unless a)you become a huge band a la Radiohead/Coldplay/Green Day/etc, there's really no way to make a living solely off that (and don't give me any crap about the band choices; like them or not, those bands are 'big' enough where they can afford to pursue any artistic/monetary endeavor without having to worry about the heat going off).
I'm in a band right now, mainly doing our own recording to a four-track while playing in local clubs around the NYC/Hoboken area. Maybe one day we'll take them into a studio and do a "real" recorded version or I'll wind up buying and setting up my own recording studio. Maybe someday we'll hit it big enough to support month-long tours around the states at bigger venues/festivals. But I'm securing a degree because I know that, more likely than not, we won't be able to hit a popularity even remotely close to the one Grizzly Bear has, and they already have money troubles (I believe what they say).
I love my degree and can envision myself in a career in it just as easily as a career in music; I'm passionate about both. Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones who has found that compromise.
Comments