The strongest rumors for headliners seem to revolve around Arcade Fire, Coldplay, Kings of Leon, but there's still buzz around Kanye, White Stripes and Daft Punk. I personally think an AF/Coldplay/KOL headlining Coachella doesn't seem to have enough diversity to it since AF is indie's answer to arena rock, Coldplay is the UK's answer to generic alternative arena rock and KOL is America's generic alternative answer to arena rock. One should be switched out for a rap or electronic headliner to break everything up nicely, but a Stripes return would be enjoyable too.
Without a shadow of a doubt, I can tell you the following bands and musicians are confirmed whether it be by them, their agency, nearby tour dates or interviews:
- PJ Harvey (Agency confirmed, Amazon.com product description for Let England Shake oddly confirmed it as well until it was removed today)
- Interpol (Confirmed in interview)
- It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia LIVE! (Devito confirmed on Jimmy Kimmel)
- Glassjaw (Confirmed in magazine article)
- Bright Eyes (Playing the traditional pre-Coachella Glasshouse show in Pamona right before)
- Caifanes - (Confirmed on website)
Also, the Sargeant Group confirmed two of their acts to play this year but didn't specify which. Educated guesses deduce it's between Fang Island, HELLA and Boris.
I'm happy Abe Vigoda came in where it did. I wasn't even expecting it to make the Top 50 altogether since the score was just okay and they hadn't made much a fuss over them lately.
Just curious to know where CocoRosie is in all this, Stereogum? You conjured up a huge dialogue over how Grey Oceans was critically panned but should not have been at one point this year, so I thought for sure you'd give it the nod you thought it deserved.
Either way, I love the list. You're the only site who understands good music (even if you don't post as much funny music gossip news anymore.)
Surprisingly I'm not as annoyed by their list as much as I expected to be. I think the Brits taste in indie this year shows a lot of love for good new bands that aren't just about hype. Robyn's Body Talk (complete) should have made the list and not just Part 1, though.
I think the album sums up current youth culture trendiness at its best/worst (depending on which side of the fence you sit on.) It definitely appeals to the faux-hipster crowd (which kind of makes you miss faux-emo) with Matt & Kim being the peppy American Apparel version of Brooklyn's biggest cheerleaders but it also appeals to a broader pop audience because, and maybe it's just me, but a lot of these songs sound like Matt & Kims song mashed together with that godawful "Shawtyz like a memory in my head that I can't keep up with got me singing somethingsomethingsmething like my iPod stuck on replay. like my iPod stuck on replay.." song.
I'm really surprised the lead singer from Sharks didn't make this list. I'd peg the band to be NME's coolest "it" Brit punk band of the year, much like they named Frank of Gallows the coolest a few years back. Maybe next year?
I will admit this is a "good" artsy album and creatively, warrants a decent level of respect. I will also say this album requires a lot of attention to detail and at times I felt like Sufjan was throwing everything including the kitchen sink into the songs for the sake of sounding complex. To some, that may be interpreted as him pushing the envelop and exploring new sounds, but to me, it sounded a bit pretentious with the overblown arrangements as if the guy has something to prove. He's gotten quite smug over the past year with teases about his writer's block debacle and then coming up with this. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything less.
I had a typical Williamsburg hipster friend who was hard into Collins-era Genesis while making music with his Ex Models-influenced band, so to me, I felt like the trend already happened.
I don't understand that either. Asthmatic Kitty is in a seller relationship with Amazon, knowing full well that they are synonymous with prices that undercut market values. If you don't want that to happen, then don't do business with them. I'm sure their reason is that they can't sell music without retailers like them but I was under the impression that as a record label, you have every right to control the minimum advertised price of your music in stores and online. Maybe Asthmatic Kitty should be blaming themselves for failing to manager their pricing properly instead of just assuming retailers will do what's best for their business interests also.
Originally I thought he was angry about the physical release and although I enjoy Sufjan, I thought he was coming off sounding like a passive aggressive bitch (Since I still buy physical, I think $7.99 is the sweet spot for a new CD in the year 2010.) However, I see the conundrum is about digital and this brings to light something I never really deal with in my musical consumption : How much I think is a fair price for digital format. On one hand I want say to Sufjan, let's be honest: If people are actually bothering to pay ANY money at all for music these days regardless of format, then take that as a compliment. But I think my personal feeling is that just because it's digital, it shouldn't be worth any less than physical. It's a listener's choice to choose which format they want, and if they want to pay more for something they can't hold in their hands but supposedly has better quality sound, then let them.
Now this is a great example of the type of stories I used to love reading on Stereogum but have seen less and less of. Welcome back, I missed you so much.
I remember when Stereogum used to live blog the VMAs by the minute as it happened. Gone are the days of offering candid, quirky and funny observations of the music world and here are the days where adverts, corporate sponsorships and ownership pressures dictate what this site posts. This site, your and your fellow writers have have lost your balls (except for Jessica, who doesn't have any and would explain why you brought her on board.)
Not to mention any time they cover a more obscure or indie band that isn't already making millions of dollars, it's just a vapid endorsement for a band the writers here are buddies with. And then that bands unreleased/unleaked album magically appears in their Heavy Rotation area (See: Sufjan, Marnie Stern, Summer Camp)
Your way of choosing bands makes no sense at all. Sleigh Bells is omitted because they felt more like an '09 band? They had zero official releases last year aside from MySpace tracks. Yet you put Wild Nothing on here, who had an EP or two out before 2010 and were buzzed about last year more so than Sleigh Bells.
If there's anything to be said about Stereogum's best new bands list of 2010, it's messed up just like the site's layout. I can't even read half the stuff on here because of all the ads leaking onto the text. This site has gone downhill big time and now you guys can't even put together a decent list.
Comments