On a personal note, if you're not a totally ungrateful person, you would care about mbv getting screwed even if you're not a fan of their albums. I looked at the bands you list on your Facebook, and most of them would sound very different or not exist without mbv's influence. Indie rock exists because the mainstream has proven to be a hostile and predatory environment for a lot of artists. Indie rockers and their fans have always operated as a community; that's a big part of why underground music has been able to persevere against often overwhelming odds, so it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I see instances of opportunism and a lack of respect for others' efforts.
Decent people think that stealing is wrong and frown upon it. That's why if you go out and rob a convenience store and you get caught, there are laws in place that say you will spend some time in prison. They have undeservedly gained critical acclaim and at least some money from an album's worth of music that they had little to do with. There are laws against that and artists have successfully taken other artists to court and held them responsible for plagiarism, so if you don't care you are obviously in the minority. It makes no sense to invest any money on their debut album when the songs have been done before and better by better people, and if people buy their second album with that knowledge, then I guess they really don't care where their money goes or about originality, which is really sad because I would think that one of the reasons one gravitates toward indie rock in the first place is because they s/he is looking for original ideas and care at least a little bit about artistic integrity.
By the way, I don't know if they still do, but at one time this band even had the nerve to list mbv's Ecstasy and Wine-era songs as an "influence" on their MySpace profile.
You know, speaking of "influences," it's a good thing that Kevin Shields evidently never heard their first album because it basically plagiarizes my bloody valentine's Ecstasy and Wine-era songs. Oh, and "Everything With You" is a tamer version of mbv's "Thorn" (from the You Made Me Realise EP). You would be better off listening to Gold-Bears, who have a similar sound but who actually bother to write their own songs.
Yes tbonespop, the most popular music is usually the best. Oh wait, only an idiot would think that, and U2 is boring. I would argue that most people do not really connect with popular music; they simply consume it like they would a carton of milk or a box of cereal. Not that it matters at all, but as long as you brought it up, all of the Tune-Yards performances I attended at this year's SXSW were completely packed. In the '60's, the people that ran record labels were people who loved music and had good taste in music. The general public will always first gravitate toward the simplest music that is most readily available to them, especially if it is wrapped in a nice shiny package. When people who were first and foremost businessmen, not music lovers, took over the music industry, the "artists" that received the most backing were the ones with the most marketable images and music. The tastemakers had no taste, but people continued to follow the big labels blindly because people tend to be lazy and close-minded about art unless they are pushed to be otherwise. I don't have anything else to say to you; you clearly don't know anything about music. I don't even know how you found your way to this website.
Wastelander, like so many before you on this thread, you apparently did not read my posts and are actually reinforcing points I already made. I said I thought Oasis's first two albums were good, and to be more specific, I really like Don't Look Back in Anger. All but one person on this thread has referred to the first two abums every time they wanted to defend Oasis. My stance has always been that since the first two albums were good and the rest of their output was mostly silly and disposable, Oasis should have broken up and Noel should have retired a long time ago.
My point had nothing to do with me being totally awesome for listening to obscure bands. Frankly, I wish there were a lot of mainstream stuff worth listening to, but unfortunately this isn't the '60s. In your previous post, you tried to make it sound like the only reason anyone would listen to Tune-Yards is to be one of the cool, hip kids. My point was that I liked her for reasons that had nothing to do with what anyone else thought because, at the time, virtually no one was thinking about her. There are actually very few people who listen to indie music to conform to some preconceived notion of "cool." The people who disagree and perpetutate the hipster myth are usually those who are just too close-minded or lazy to look for bands to listen to outside of what is spoonfed to them. I don't think I could change your mind because you are mindless, like the people you describe who are apparently content to sing along to what is really a jingle being blasted through large amps.
I bought the first Tune-Yards album when about 50 people knew who she was, and I am someone who is very hard on singer/songwriter types and pretty much anything that doesn't somehow involve an electric guitar. I liked it because it was distinct, soulful, uninhibited, and personal music. She was playing a ukelele and using a loop pedal and fusing styles of music that I normally wouldn't listen to (excepting the Slits and the Raincoats) into some kind weird rock amalgam that was utterly charming and had some backbone. And wow, those vocals. The bare-bones solo performance she gave at her first SXSW appearance a couple of years ago to a small circle of people remains in my mind one of those magical SXSW moments that justifies all of the brutal heat and walking one must endure at that insane (but also insanely wonderful) festival. Oasis have no business being mentioned in the same breath as those bands you just mentioned, and for all their pomp and swagger and millions of dollars, they never gave a performance as great as Merrill Garbus on her worst day because, for the most part, they steadfastly refused to bare their souls. And if you think that Oasis were the last of the great British bands, then you are way, way out of touch with music, and I actually feel bad for you, not just because you haven't the credibility to be taken seriously in a music discussion, but because you have obviously missed out on so much music that is worthwhile. I'll leave you with this: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Liam-Gallaghers-Tambourine/118707031473994?sk=wall&filter=12#!/pages/Liam-Gallaghers-Tambourine/118707031473994?sk=wall
Please explain how songs devoid of any substance "work." If you are playing songs about nothing, eventually it doesn't matter how good the melodies are because at its core it's hollow. This is why Be Here Now is such a colossal failure. The first couple of times I Iistened to it, I liked it. I thought, "This is glossy and triumphant." But the more I listened to it, the more I realized that there was something artificial about it. It is possible to write bad lyrics and still write a song that is actually about something real and personal. When bands do this, the songs may succeed in spite of the lyrics. In Oasis's case, the lyrics are almost always bad because the songs really are not about anything...or if they are about something, Noel is telling you about something in a way that is detached from any personal experience or emotion he has experienced. Be Here Now is really anti-art. Instead of showing us triumph and transcendent beauty, most of the songs function as a clinical description of what those things are. The only thing genuine about the album is Liam's incessant sneering, which pervades nearly every song, no matter how inappropriate it may be. I think there was actually a review that the NME did where they remarked on Liam's laughable "NYAH-NYAH"s in the intended "na-na" outro of the Hey-Jude-by-numbers catastrophe known as All Around the World.
You are totally right. The first two albums are very good, as are the b-sides. However, they really should have stopped after that because Noel had exhausted his entire lyrical repertoire and they ended up becoming a parody of themselves.
I hate it when people label something that displays vulnerability as "girly." The notion that displaying vulnerability is something that only females should do is one of the reasons why far too many men end up repressed emotional basketcases who think they can only express themselves by lashing out. That said, the guy is right about the state of people's musical tastes. There are lots of great, energetic and exciting guitar-oriented bands, but I have to search like Hell to find out about them since sad and quiet bands keep getting all of the press (even on supposed indie "rock" websites). This has become an epidemic. A Place to Bury Strangers were around for years before they were signed to a label or anyone wrote articles about them. Skywave, Oliver Ackermann's previous band, were just as good, and if their albums are ever reissued, it looks as though it will be on the smallest of indie labels. The death of Anet Mook, who once spearheaded former UK buzz band, cay, received virtually no coverage, despite the fact that she wrote some of the best straightforward guitar rock songs (no easy feat) of the last ten years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcKcUS2tNgg Inoffensive music that blends into the background has become the order of the day, and when it is not some acoustic, folky person being covered, it is usually some boring electronic drivel made on a laptop. And you know, if you are going to do something less rock-oriented, follow the Jeff Mangum model and risk something; do it with some intensity and edge. Every now and then, there is someone who comes along who can do the quiet acoustic thing really well, but they are really very few and far between. I have time for Nick Drake, Sibylle Baier, and Josh Pearson but not a whole lot of others.
I really don't understand anybody who comes on this site and says they never got into Nevermind. So many (really good) bands in modern indie rock are in some way influenced by NIRVANA that it is incomprehensible to me that someone who frequents this site would be unable to appreciate them...and prefer U2, who have always seemed to me like self-important corporate rock stars.
Actually, he's not overweight and never has been. They showed him standing up several times on The Colbert Report tonight, and the guy is in shape, just as he's always been. Rewatch the show if you need to. He just has a pale, round face (and if he were overweight he has the kind of face that would quickly develop a double-chin, so look closely at his profile too). Conan O'Brien's face is similar, which is why his beard made such a difference. The beard made it possible to see that it actually has a shape and isn't just some pale mass of flesh. Noel Gallagher is wrong about pretty much everything by the way, which is why he didn't have the good sense to stop making albums after What's the Story Morning Glory? I used to listen to Be Here Now if I was feeling depressed because it was always worse than anything in my life...or the world for that matter.
Yeah, how did Wye Oak not make the list? The Crystal Stilts and Snowman also released noteworthy albums. I'm not sure if Surf City counts since their album only came out in 2011 in the US, but someone needs to start giving that album some recognition. As for Tune-Yards, I really want to love whokill because I loved Bird-Brains so much, but so far I mostly just miss the personal feel of the debut.
Dude, how limited are your musical reference points? Yuck sounds like a mix of Teenage Fanclub and Pavement, with dashes of Dinosaur Jr. I mean, anyone who can't spot those influences has no business criticizing Yuck, who by the way are anything but boring live. Feel free to retake the Indie Rock 101 class...
Been done again? Oh, you mean the song is excecuted in the style of an existing genre? I have never understood that criticism. Very little music reinvents the wheel, and how much music that does is actually good? I'd much rather listen to this than the latest soulless electronic bullcrap that is supposedly "pushing the envelope."
There is nothing wrong with giving a band a chance if you feel that you are missing something. There are a lot of bands that I simply didn't get until I listened to a whole album. That said, this band is about as exciting as the color for which they are named.
Wow, something signficant related to indie rock happened near my old hometown, Chesapeake, VA. Usually indie rock bands avoid the Tidewater area altogether. I think the last great show there was Skywave, which I believe would have been 2003.
Okay, so for anyone critical of the vocals, let me me tell you something. I saw this band at SXSW because they went on before White Hills. Their vocalist literally only has two melodies that he sings. He alters the rhthyms of what he sings, but that is all. It is bizarre. Also, I was stunned to find out that he is singing words, and not just words, but different words in every song. It always sounds like, "Rah-rah-rooo!" or "Raay-raaah!" or a combination of both. When the night was over and I was driving home, I kept myself awake with awesome impressions of this guy's singing.
Comments