People like what they like, as far as music is concerned. I'm sure there are tons of hardworking musicians out there, but just because they work hard at it doesn't mean anyone's going to, or necessarily should, enjoy or even care about what they're doing. Hardworking musicians can, and often do, produce some downright terrible music, and stoned slackers sometimes make some awesome music.
It only makes you a hypocrite/sellout if you share their anti-big business views.
Personally, though I'm pretty progressive in my political views, I'm generally apathetic about big businesses. Some of them are ok, some of them I hate. What I don't like is politicians who, despite their alleged views favoring good policy, make poor policy choices or downright capitulations on behalf of big business interests.
So even if I don't really share their views completely, I would feel justified calling Pearl Jam sellouts, and if I were really a fan who thought they stood for something meaningful based on their stated political views, I would be terribly disappointed.
"In case your more concerned about Blink-182's sounds, you can head to AP and pretend its the '90s again."
At this point, I genuinely am more interested in what Blink 182's doing than what Weezer's doing.
I've always enjoyed Blink 182 on a certain level. For what they do, they do it much, much better than the current incarnation of Weezer.
I give that movie reference a 6 out of 10.
I didn't think it was that good a movie myself, but maybe in the way that I'll watch or listen to something, not like it at all, then come back to it way down the line and really like it.
If I want to hear music, I usually don't spend $25 and travel an hour and a half into Boston to hear it. I can just plug headphones into my computer and press play in iTunes. Or put on a CD in my car. Or use my iPod.
If I want a live music experience, THEN I go spend $25 and travel an hour and a half into Boston. (Like I did for the of Montreal show last month.) I don't think it's unreasonable to want something more out of a live music experience than simply listening to good-sounding music ? especially when I know there are plenty of live shows I can go to that DO offer more than that (like the aforementioned of Montreal show).
I love Animal Collective's music, and they do have a legitimately good live sound ? I've listened to a podcast of one of their sets from NPR's All Songs Considered a few times and I really like it. I also don't doubt that it takes talent to make their music and to reproduce it live.
But, that being said, now that I've seen a few different videos with live footage of them, I'm glad their show sold out before I was able to get tickets, because it just does not seem like it would be an enjoyable experience. If I'm going to see a band that uses primarily samplers rather than instruments live, I'd much rather it be a fun band that I can dance to.
Of course, to each his own and all that. Obviously, lots of people do enjoy seeing them live, because their Boston show sold out in about a week, but I just wanted to say that there are perfectly legitimate, respectful reasons to not like their live performances.
St. Vincent's awesome live.
Personally, I probably like Animal Collective's music better, but they don't seem like their show would be that good of a live experience, so I'd definitely prefer St. Vincent.
Definitely sounds much-less-than-sincere to me. They ask him if he'd like to apologize and he says, "I would" ? yet never does. Plus, as Pitchfork very accurately points out, in his original smack-talkin', Wayne says, "Whenever I've been around them, I've found that they not only treated their crew like shit, they treated the audience like shit." That makes it quite unbelievable that Wayne truly means it when he says "I meant it about the guys that were running their stages at a couple of festivals."
I'd also disagree with Stereogum that Win Butler "angrily responded." His response seemed quite reasonable and respectful to me. Granted, you're bound to be at least a bit peeved if someone says stuff like that about you, but still.
Anyways, I like enough of their music.
It looks like I'm in the rather small minority here, but I don't really like this song that much. However, I really like both "The Reeling" and "Little Secrets."
Your post is generally quite reasonable, except that they really are promoting DMB's music. They provide news about the release date of the album, give a link to the song, and include a trailer/preview about their album.
Obviously, this is a terribly sad and unfortunate thing, and I'm sure very painful for Dave, the rest of the band and all their fans. But that still doesn't mean their music should be promoted here.
Moreover, in response to those who keep saying, "Oh, but they're such excellent musicians! And so many people love their music!"
So? I'm pretty sure that part of enjoying indie music is that great technical proficiency is not necessarily sufficient for great music ? and in fact not even necessary. If I'm not mistaken, Pavement is a fairly seminal group for fans of indie music. By the standards of people trumpeting DMB's technical proficiency, everyone's favorite artists should all be like jazz musicians and Yngwie Malmsteen or something.
And by its nature, indie is not mainstream ? meaning that the popularity of any given artist should have very little relation to how much indie music fans like them.
Sorry to be overtly snobby, but the fact is this is an indie blog, and there should be SOME sort of self-censorship amongst fans of indie music, or else what's to differentiate it from top 40 or any other music?
Without making any judgment on the quality of DMB's music, I simply do not think Stereogum should be writing about them. They are not an indie band, plain and simple. I'm tolerant of other peoples' tastes, and sure it's pretty hard to define what is and isn't indie. But for there to be any standards whatsoever, a line must be drawn that excludes artists that are very clearly not indie, and DMB definitely falls into that category.
Well, I go to as many shows as I can and (like the other commenter) sometimes buy music.
But the thing about it is, if I only stuck to buying music, I literally wouldn't even listen to half of what I do, because otherwise I would be spending half of every paycheck on music and, thus, not have enough to pay all my bills. So there's only so much money to be made from music sales; people need to realize that illegal downloading is here to stay.
Once people have access to such a vast amount of music that they wouldn't otherwise, for both logistical and financial reasons, they're not going to refrain from obtaining it.
Obviously it's hard for me to say this with any credibility (since I'm not in anywhere near that position), but I honestly believe people who really love making music will do so without the expectation of being able to make a living off of record sales. Since taste is so subjective, it''s hard to say that any type of art should necessarily be profitable for it's creators, and I don't think there should be an expectation that it will be. Get a day job and continue making music for the love of it.
Does she know who she's dealing with?
Radiohead released "Kid A" and "Amnesiac" on a major label. Then they self-released "In Rainbows" without the backing of a label ? and gave it away.
She has a really inflated opinion of herself if she honestly after all that, SHE'LL be able to "ruin" them.
There's an indirect quote in the Reuters article the original post links to.
"'That hurt,' West told the audience, because he idolizes the British band, and considers it one of his few creative rivals."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090227/music_nm/us_kanyewest
He's got a lot more than "one mediocre summer hit." And that's not just in his reality ? in most people's realities, he's had four big albums, with at least eight big hits (I'd say that's a conservative estimate). Plus, that's not counting all the big hits he's produced.
However, yeah, it is kinda ridic for him to consider Radiohead one of the "few in his league." And that shit about O.J. and Chris Brown is just wrong.
When exactly does a record label cross the threshold from being an "indie" to a major label?
Also, Sub Pop has some sort of big distribution deal with Starbucks. Back in October and December, Fleet Foxes' album was one of like three that were being sold there. I work at a Starbucks, and we seriously played that album, in its entirety, at least four times a day.
When it gets to this point, the distinction between "indie" and "major" label seems almost negligible to me. Sub Pop must have some input or veto power over releases to be as successful as it is. If someone truly wants to be indie, they can record on their own hard drive and burn their own CDRs.
I wish "Always Sunny" had been at number 1, or at least beaten "30 Rock," because I definitely think it's funnier.
Also, I am extremely dissappointed that "The Colbert Report" didn't make it and "The Daily Show" did. I find Colbert to be at least like 200 times funnier than Jon Stewart, who to me seems to be an obnoxious, more-overtly partisan shill.
(Not that I don't share Steward and Colbert's views, but I think Colbert is much better at simply going for good laughs rather than partisan jabs.)
As appears to be the consensus, I definitely think the girls list is much better than the guys.
However, I would take Jenny Lewis off the list, move Lykke Li up to number 2 and and put Regina Spektor at number 3. I'm really surprised she didn't make the list, but maybe it's because she's not super indie or anything. But she is really, really cute and makes good music.
In my opinion, at least some reasonable base-line of attractiveness is necessary for a crush. Not sufficient; there must be some other factor(s) at play as well, but ... I simply never find myself with a crush on an individual that I do not in any way find attractive.
The show in Mansfield, MA, is actually at the Comcast Center.
Understandable if some people can't keep up with all the damn name changes, but it hasn't been Great Woods for nine years now. (It was the Tweeter Center from 1999 until the summer of 2008).
Agreed. From my experience. there are just as many female indie fans as male ones ? probably more. And most would qualify as "hot," at least in my book; there's a certain sort of niche of cute, fair-skinned twee girls who knit and most likely wear glasses and listen to indie music. And generally date the skinny dudes with slightly scraggly facial hair who also listen to indie music and maybe post on this forum.
I just looked her up. She is beautiful [(but she doesn't mean a thing to me ...) JK!!!] and seems super cool and talented and stuff.
But so is Zooey. So way to go Ben! You definitely know how to pick 'em! (And Zooey apparently doesn't have bad taste in guys either.)
I feel so oddly proud right now.
First of all, who says he aspires to be "manly"?
Secondly, I don't really see image as being any sort of significant part of Death Cab's appeal. So who cares if he wears pants that are too tight?
Third, have you ever listened to "We Have the Facts and We're Voting Yes" and/or read the lyrics? Death Cab used to be an amazing indie band. Not sure if they could really be called "indie" any more and, true, "Plans" was kinda lame, but their latest album is pretty great, so they're still cool in my book.
Also: Does the term "emo" still even qualify as a genre of music any more? I think it's kind of 5 years ago by now, sort of like "alternative" is at least so 10 years ago.
Comments