"Hipster" is not synonymous with "scenester". To me, a scenester is someone who tries ridiculously hard to fit into a particular scene. You know how 16-year-olds turn really goth over the course of like, a week, and then when they're 18 at college they become patchouli-reeked hemp-clad Phish heads in a semester, and then around age 21 they go all Hip Hop and start an underground rap career? Hipster has become a meaningless phrase that people toss out to insult anyone that's not into the same weird music they are, when in fact it should be reserved for people who predictably hop from trend to trend in order to be more up on what's cool than everyone else. They're like anti-scenesters; hipsters want to be *ahead* of the scenes. For instance, Animal Collective fans aren't automatically hipsters *unless* they only like the band while it's cool to do so, and then move on to whatever the new cool thing is. But just because they really like the music--to the point of disparaging more popular bands--and wear silly pseudo-ironic T-Shirts covered in montage pictures of wolves and bears doesn't necessarily make them hipsters (but it *could* make them scenesters, actually). Of course, we have to wait for "cool time" to pass before we see who the real hipsters of a scene are. That's all beside the point: surely we can think of more fitting and creative insults for people we don't like.
Hey Stereogum, can you just program a graemlin so that whenever anyone types "hipster" it comes out in the post as "phbbbt" or something? I really can't stand reading that word a hundred times whenever I'm on the internet.
Grace: This is something I've noticed with the under 22 set these days. If you don't "ride" for this or that artist, then you're automatically a "hater" (or "hatter" or "hateur" for you net kids). It's just an easy way for simple people to simplify their world, because if they had to actually consider the validity of someone else's opposing opinion for a moment, they'd probably realize that they don't really form many of their own. It's easier for them to "buddy" up with the armada of people who like whatever it is that's being debated and simply shut down disagreement by pretending people who aren't on their side either don't exist or must be some sort of freakish contrarian who gets off on being "different". It's a really boring form of living, and I find that I can't stand 10 minutes around people who act that way. It's a mindset that runs rampant in political debate as well. Detrimental and sad, wouldn't you say?
America is a pretty nuanced place; and it's very large geographically, ethnically, and socially, so I think it would be hard to make a statement about what most Americans think about anything. Maybe you're curious as to what college bound children of middle class white parents that follow music are into. I'd guess it's a pretty 50/50 split between people who love the band and people who don't care/dislike the band among that demographic. But that's true with pretty much every band on the planet. I can't think of a band that has ever been universally loved. Some people hated the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the 60s for god's sake (my Mom loved the Stones, hated the Beatles for instance). I'm sure Hendrix had his detractors. We all love 80s Underground bands around here today, but they weren't popular at all when they were making music (relatively speaking, they were popular among the people who already knew they existed).
I think it would be safer to say that somewhere between 70% to 80% of Americans have never even heard of Vampire Weekend. All my friends are early to mid 20s, they're all "creative" types (but nonmusicians), and I think I'm the only one who's knowingly heard Vampire Weekend.
I don't have time to pull up the link, but a Sound of Young America ( maximumfun.org ) interview with Steve Albini addresses this subject. He had a rather ingenious method if I recall. He said something about how it's easier to get "career" jobs and then when you go on tour, you tell your management that you've decided to go back to school. You'll still get your positive recommendation for the next job, and you can quit your current one without notice. Anyway, you can find the interview at maximumfun.org , in the episode from when the host broadcast from Chicago.
Wait a minute. Do you mean ALL swing music sucks? That's a pretty heavy dismissal of the dominant form of American music throughout WWII and the clear precursor to the "precious" Rock and Roll everyone speaks of nowadays.
Isn't this the "Cut My Life Into PIECES!!!" pro-wrestling inspired band? They were allowed to make *more* music after that trash? Who bought this crap... oh... kids who were 13. Thanks a lot children of the 90s...
And by the way, has anyone else noticed that the bands that appear in the Hangover usually shortly release another shitty album? That group Len sticks out the most to me. They had the old video here, and the next week a new album came out. So I guess we can all expect to be ignoring a new Papa Roach album soon.
This is really shortsighted logic. A guitar is worthless without strings that someone else made, needless to say that someone else invented and built that guitar. Hell, the vibrations of the strings are worthless without air to be moved. And an electric guitar is even more worthless without an amplifier, and complete junk without the infrastructure of a nationwide power grid to supply the needed electricity to run the amp (which is all the work of other people). Besides, the guitar is probably tuned to standard tuning (which someone else created), is playing an Asus4 (which someone else devised) during a chorus (which is probably some nugget of a conversation the singer overheard) while standing on a stage (once again, musicians stole this from the theatre).
See how this argument's going to turn out? You need to open your mind, *EVERY* musician steals other music. Every single one of them. As has been said time and time again: talent imitates, genius steals (as a matter of fact, I'm almost sure I've heard Noel or Liam say *precisely* the same thing). Unless they're playing their own instrument they created themselves, according to a degree of tones they devised themselves (no majors, minors, lydians, etc, those were ALL "written" by someone else), in an arrangement that's completely uninspired by any previous works. There's simply no such thing as completely original music. Music is not a spectrum of individual inventions, it's a dialogue between listeners. Musicians are merely specialized listeners.
It's like this, an author isn't expected to make up words when he writes a book, right? He's supposed to use words that others in the culture created to say what he has to say. Music is no different. Regardless of what the RIAA wants you to believe, music is *not* a resource. It's just conversation at varying tones, intervals, volumes, and rhythm. Stop being an instrument elitist and really *embrace* music for what it is: Sound.
I think if they had included "Reasonable Doubt"-- an almost universally acclaimed album in the Hip Hop community, and pretty much the source of all Jay-Z's credibilty-- instead of "The Blueprint", ranking Jay-Z would have been justified, although probably not at number nine. They got it right with Nas's "Illmatic", though.
And I agree, for EW's reader base, Unplugged would easily be the go to Nirvana album. I know tons people pushing 40 who still listen to that album, and I'd bet they never listen to any other Nirvana albums.
I disagree. You're right in that crazy people sometimes don't know they're crazy, but nerdiness doesn't fall into the same "self-aware trap." (and to be honest, most mentally ill people are aware that they are somehow crazy, and that doesn't change the fact that they're still crazy) Every single geek, nerd, poindexter, and dweeb has known or found out at some point that they are nerdy. Doesn't change a thing. Being aware of and OK with your own nerdiness might make you cooler, but you're still just a cool nerd.
I don't know if you're trying to be funny, but Kim's on St. Marks is one of the only record stores I've been to that had a section specifically for new Death Metal vinyl. I'm not into it, but I thought that was capital-A Awesome.
Does everyone still hate Kim's? I used to work there and people automatically assumed I was a jerk. But that was fine, I hated most of the other employees myself, so I could relate.
Yeah, I think Other Music is only on the list because they have indie bands play in-store performances. Which makes them "cool" I suppose. But I find the smaller stores in NYC often have a much better selection of new indie vinyl. Etherea on Avenue A in particular kills Other Music's vinyl selection on the new release front.
Shmeh, Turntablelab is the bee's knees, baby. Like you said, they're a store for DJs, and they do it well. Sure, you're not going to find the latest indie vinyl, but they've got an excellent selection of the recently released outre stuff NYC DJs need to have on hand to stay up on the game. And since indie music isn't all that popular at bars and clubs-- or the public in general-- that can be a real help. And the amount of short run 12" re-issues they carry is awesome. You're not likely to find a 12" with instrumental and a capella for every track on Reasonable Doubt or Illmatic anywhere else anytime soon. And the fact that they carry almost every wide-release [sic] break record released in the last 7 years is great... For DJs, that is. But it's not like DJs aren't some of the biggest vinyl purchasers around today. We just spend most of our time in obscure mom and pop thrift stores and dusty, dirty olde record shoppes (or all day downstairs at The Thing in Brooklyn); places that would never get mentioned in a list like this, which is good for me.
I think another reason people like the ads is because TMBG so perfectly lampoons so many little alt-genres (as they've always done). The "Moving" ad even seems to get little jabs in at the Anticon rappers. Awesome.
Ack, Stereogum! You got Hip Hop message board all over my white boy strums site! I'm usually here to avoid these silly Weezy arguments that wreck the Hip Hop forums.
It's just Weezy, take him or leave him. The hype about how great he is is obviously overblown, but he's better than some others. Middle of the road.
I'll say this, though, if you don't consider yourself a Hip Hop head (and you would know if you were), then stay away from proclamations about how he's the greatest rapper ever. You're making yourselves look silly. And qualifying a statement like that by comparing him to Kanye West is extremely fucking laughable. Even hardcore Kanye fanboys pretty much agree that he's a terrible rapper. His skill is in his beats.
I know the first rap album that touches you seems like a magical experience, but don't forget that the music has been going on for almost 30 years now. Just because you never liked it before doesn't mean that no one in the past has ever been any good at it. Check your egos, please. There's enough of that already in Hip Hop.
A true musical innovator: In style, technique, rhythm, performance, even designing guitars and developing effects.
There's a hole in my Mississippi heart today, that won't soon be filled. So it goes, Mr. Diddley.
You know, the first time I read about Kim Gordon saying that, I thought she meant "universal" as in ubiquitous or widespread, not Universal the label. I originally thought she was making a somewhat grand statement about indie culture and it's distaste of anything once it becomes really popular.
I guess the actual context makes more sense.
They were sort of popular in South Mississippi when I lived there several years ago. As I recall, String Cheese kids and Spreadheads liked themselves some special sauce.
Geez, people. The Radiohead model argument is getting redundant. To me, this was the interesting comment:
"It's a fascinating game those guys play, all the ways they tell their story; the little corners they choose to lift to show off their flashy lights and old effects boxes."
*That* seems a little backhanded and belittling. Although I know Radiohead uses vintage gear, they've *never* made a point of letting that play into their image. And they were one of the first really popular and respected rock bands to embrace the more digital aspects of music in the 90s, so of course people and the press tend to play up their digital-ness or "flashy lights", but they often use those things as a way to explore musical options, not as gimmicks. Like the vintage gear, I don't see Radiohead implementing digital processing in any way other than to help write a song. Then they turn around very often and hit you with a 'typical-for-Radiohead' rock song devoid of any blatant electronic instrumentation which shows, to me, they certainly are aware and capable of playing into and shaking up a listener's expectations, not just gimmicky, soon-to-be-dated studio trickery.
And I'm not a huge Radiohead fan or anything; I've really only heard InRainbows in social situations, but I think this would be the wrong area to take swipes at them. They seem to be pretty earnest musicians simply concerned with making music they think is important by methods they think are innovative. I wish all musicians were so self-aware and critical. It may not seem groundbreaking to everyone, but it's certainly not to be dismissed.
And, Chris Walla, I'm somewhat underexposed to DCFC's and your music, so don't mistakenly think that I'm trying to backhand you and your music. I definitely don't want to imply that your band is gimmicky. Although, it could be, I really don't know.
Maybe if you were a loner with few friends to talk about music with, but people have argued the same close-minded arguments about this art since it's inception, probably (I can't speak on the pretensions of ancient man).
The internet didn't start this, it just put it somewhere you could easily find it. Turn on your "troll filter" or whatever and move on. There are still decent comments between all the noise.
How in the hell can a marketing campaign, some of which appropriates the words of DEAD pop icons (a few who were openly opposed to commercialism) to sell SHOES, be about "the music?"
And if you think Pharrel and the dudes from the Strokes are going to magically produce anything except some watered down, corporate-approved, "this will appeal to the hip indie demographic" musick... well, let's just say I'm kind of glad I'm not a naive 15-year-old in this current pop climate. It keeps me from buying into some stupid 90s/80s Myth of Music that mainstream rags (like Stereogum) are championing. Trust me, the 80s and 90s were just as dumb, shrill, pointless, and commercialized as the 60s and 70s were.
You obviously don't remember the extent of Nirvana's fame. Little girls loved that band.
And if it's not pop, then how do you explain Kurt's numerous comments that Nirvana was just a pop band? He consistently compared the band with Cheap Trick! It's in their press bios.They were adamantly a pop band. When asked to describe Nirvana in one interview, what does the band do? They start playing "My Sharona," one of the most quintessential pop songs of the last half century.
Besides, look at the structure: Verse-Chorus-Verse, high melodic content, minimal focus on instrumentation, high vocal focus, solos that replay the verse melody note for note, 3 minute structure, easy to remember lyrics. For crying out loud, most 3rd verses are the 1st verse repeated, a pop arrangement so cliche it's vocally made fun of in songs by bands like The Ramones.
That's Pop music. If you don't get it, then you must not have actually lived through Nirvana's hey day.
You know what? Fuck it. The first thing AllMusic Guide lists as Nirvana's style is *ALTERNATIVE POP*. Case closed for me.
And if you think Pop = Backstreet Boys, I suggest you check out The Beatles or The Beach Boys sometime.
Would Dave Grohl be considered the best rock or metal drummer? Absolutely not.
Was Nirvana considered one of the heaviest, catchiest, most rocking *Pop* bands of all time? Yes. And that's by Kurt and Dave and Krist's own description of Nirvana's music. They were in Teen Beat and Tiger for god's sake!
So I say yes, Dave Grohl is an amazing pop drummer. He's played drums on many of the heaviest most popular pop songs in the last 20 years.
Err... maybe because it's a bit of a streeetch to claim that "Blue" and "Pinkerton" are Masterpieces. Good albums, maybe (I say no, but people seem to like them), but certainly not even close to a piece of art we'd call a Masterpiece. You could call "Pinkerton" their masterstroke, but that's about it.
Let's wait it out and see if people are digging on Weezer in 200-300 years, the way people dig on Rembrandt, Beethoven, or Michelangelo. Then we can bring out words like Masterpiece and Genius. But let's not jump the gun, it makes all you Weezer fans look like silly fanboys.
I agree. But he is a very good Pop or Power Pop drummer, or whatever. And I don't mean that as a knock, I like Dave Grohl's drumming a lot.
But even he would be quick to point out (and he has before) that Matt Cameron and Dale Crover are two other grunge drummers, particularly from his era, that are much better than he is.
Props to reporting on Kayo Dot! Those guys used to play at pool halls in my old hometown, which was in the middle of nowhere, and they were always so cool and friendly with everybody. Amazed that they were willing to travel to such remote areas (the kind that even your "down-to-earth" punk and indie bands won't venture to) to play for a handful of confused people. It's great to see them hitting the big road, but I guess it's kind of sad that they probably won't be able to make the small stops anymore.
Well, I'm not really into or against any of these bands, as has been pointed out, they're not doing anything that original to anyone who's followed underground music for more than 10 years. And I don't begrudge a band for making do with what resources they have at hand when they're ready to record, but to me, Times New Viking overstep the line. Just as I think it's arrogant and pig-headed to expect fans to damage their hearing at one of your shows in order to hear you "PLAY IT LOUD!", I think it's ridiculous to ask your fans to knowingly damage their hearing in order to listen to your album. *Especially* in 2008 when decent recording and mixing gear is WAY cheaper than it was in the 80s and 90s. I could put together a home studio for less than $1000 that would make Spot's SST recording facilities look like elementary school science fair projects. The price of Lou Barlow's 4-track in 1992 would probably be enough to purchase an entire recording suite these days.
Not to say that TNV don't write good songs, but I think they're really being obnoxious and immature by trying to willfully distance listeners through a production style that destroys the listeners' ability to continue listening to music. And as you said, "when it did it stop being about the songs?" Exactly! *When* did it stop being about the songs? Why did TNV record an album so willfully awful sounding (from a recording perspective)? Shouldn't the recording process have been about the songs, and not about what terrible mic position would sound worst?
Hey, leave the studio musicians out of this. They're a hard working bunch, putting forth a lot more work and effort (for no credit) than your typical indie musician.
And you'd be surprised by how many of your favorite indie (or any genre) band's guitar/drum/bass (*specifically* drum) parts are actually being played by hired musicians. It's sort of a dirty little secret in the industry, although everyone in the recording field is aware of it. Sometimes hired musicians replay parts, recording afterhours, without the band ever knowing it (a lot of studio musicians are masters at emulating someone's sound). That's why you run into a lot of bands that seem to be able to play on record, but suck live.
These Are Powers? The noisy BK band with the Sonic Youth fetish?
I'd guess they're a little too noisy for The L, which seems to favor boring strum along white boy music "with an indie twist!"
Your an idiot. Calling someone pretentious because they're tired of hearing one of the most over used musical cliches? Why exactly is the poster pretentious? Because he listens to music with a critical ear and can recognize rehashed chord progressions or melodies? Oh wait, I know what it is:
*YOU'RE* the pretentious asshole who seems to think that his naive, unrefined, and unadventurous taste in music is somehow "better" than someone else's because "it's simple" and "I don't think about it too much, because that would be pretentious!"
Boston shouldn't be there. They produced the highest selling debut in rock history (still!), how could *any* band be expected to peak like that again? But Boston had numerous high charting singles from later albums: 'Don't Look Back' 'Feeling Satisfied' 'We're Ready' and who doesn't know 'Amanda'? All those Top20 singles were from subsequent albums. They were always selling millions of albums, every release went platinum several times over. Just not 18 times platinum like the debut. I think it's sort of a technicality to include them.
Nah... I think "The Private Press" is pretty good. It seems a lot better now that it's had some distance since it's release and doesn't have the burden of fulfilling so much hype. I'd say it has only a few less great tracks than "Endtroducing". I could take or leave all the stuff with vocals, but the instrumentals are stellar. Much more orchestrated and thought out than before. And it's Shadow's method of operation to keep developing different aspects of his style with each release. Even "Endtroducing" was simply an extension of his previous work with break beats and sampling, as opposed to focusing on his DJ'ing skills, or focusing on formal theory.
But "Psyence Fiction" (though not a proper Shadow album) and "Pre-Emptive Strike" were pretty great, too. And the "Brainfreeze" series is considered classic in most DJ circles. And he's done so much production work for rappers before and since "Endtroducing", it's hard to really pinpoint that album as his "debut". I do agree that it was his best recording to date, though.
Comments