what does thom mean when he says " I don’t subscribe to the whole thing that a lot of people do within the music industry that’s ‘well this is all we’ve got left. we’ll just have to do this.’ I just don’t agree."?
im the same way, I came of age in the indie world having my life changed by Good News, Translatlanticism, Moon and Antarctica, Im Wide Awake, Endless Numbered Days and Funeral.
But I feel like the music that most interests me right now is r&b and pop like you mentioned Disclosure, JT, Daft, Drake, Weeknd, Miguel, The Dream.
I feel the same way about 2013 in rock. Most of my top albums of the year will most likely be non-rock albums.
Maybe you and I have changed? Its possible we have moved on. I know ive disagreed with pitchfork this year, more so than in any other year that I can remember. Most of my favorite albums this year didnt get rave reviews from Pitchfork.
For me the most exciting sounds in the music right now are pop and r&b, and not guitar based rock music
much of these death of indie articles always ignore real trends. The major trend in indie music from 2003 onwards was the increasing mainstreaming and popularity of the genre, starting with Death Cab being mentioned by Seth Cohen, and including things like Arcade Fire and Bon Iver and Frank Ocean winning Grammys.
The idea of abandoning a band because they get popular isnt reality. Which is bizaare since even in 2013 the defining stereotype of a hipster and indie fan is "I only like obscure bands that no one else loves".
Whats happened in the 2000's is the mainstreaming of indie and the popularizing of a style of music. And the willingness of a generation to accept ALL styles of music, whether dubstep or indie folk, or straight up pop.
People nowadays dont care if its mainstream pop or a band that has 20 fans total. If the music is good thats the only thing that matters
I dont know. Are HAIM really the band that changes everything? I can think of a ton of other major events from this year alone, as I stated above, that were more important and groundbreaking than Days Are Gone.
Blurred Lines, Pharrell, Miguel, JT, Daft, Disclosure, etc....
I dont really see HAIM as these cultural warriors either intentional or unintentional. I dont see Days Are Gone as changing the music world or the world in general as Nevermind did
alot of it is the commercialization and popularization of indie. As recently as 2002 or so I remember being into underground hip hop. Aesop Rock, El-P, Anticon, Sole, Mos Def, Talib. All those guys were unknown to those in the mainstream. Now in 2013, every single on of them is mainstream. Everyone knows who they are.
Same could be said for the hipster lifestyle, Billysburg, skinny jeans, and indie music including pitchfork.
In 2013, pop is indie. Indie is pop. The lines are indeed blurry. TI and Pharrell both worshipped in the indie sphere, appears on a Thicke song thats the biggest song of the year. JT creates 2 albums, critically acclaimed and becomes an avatar of "cool" and "hip" culture. Get Lucky features Pharrell and is the big hit of the year. Miguel teams up with Mariah to create the song of the summer.
People in 2013 are willing to like ANY music. Tribes and sectors and genre boundaries dont exist. Good music is good music. iPods and iPads rarely are filled with one genre entirely. And often encompass a mish mash of pop, rock, indie, hip hop etc...
Indie become pop. And pop is cool right now
I love In Utero and worship Hendrix but I dont think you can make a determination like that about Iconopop. Bon Iver's For Emma will be looked back on 20 years from now, and Bon Iver Bon Iver the 2nd album most likely will be as well. For Emma is as minimal as it gets. You arent getting Fenders and amps turned to 11 on it, yet its a modern day classic. Or take more recent examples. Trilogy by The Weeknd. Intimate avantegarde and cutting edge R&B. Again, no amp or guitar used. or Sufjan's Illinois. Expansive, wild, crazy, but it isnt a rock record at all. More folk than anything else. The XX's first album. James Blakes first album. Every album I listed will be remembered 50 years from now.
Minimalism is in. I think our generation realizes we can be creative and pour out our feelings just like Hendrix or Zep or whoever did, but we can do it in a variety of ways. Fender isnt the only gateway to honest, raw, and emotional musoc.
The articles discussion about cost and the economy I think is a huge part of it. We all have ipod/ipads/laptops and smartphones. Makes sense we'd make music reflective of that.
Another thing the article should have mentioned is the type of music thats become popular in the last half decade. From Bon iver, to the Indie R&B scene, to James Blake, to the XX,. Minimalism is in. Its easier than ever to record an album on your laptop. Expensive recording studios really arent needed. Im thinking specifically of Bon Iver and How to Dress Well. We as a generation have the power to record albums cheaply and by ourselves. Or the rise in mashup DJ's like Girl Talk is another example.
The article rightly points out, guitars and amps are expensive and a luxury item. We dont NEED them the way we do a smart phone or a laptop. We dont even need a record contract. We can just record stuff on Garage band or Protools, put it up on Youtube or post it to a torrent site. Or put it on our website for free.
Guitar music will always be around. But I do think our generation is way more open to varying genres than our parents or grandparents were. As the article says, just look at any major festival. The array in musical genres at each festival is astounding.
I think more so what happened is, with the rise of Napster, Itunes and filesharing, our generation got exposed to way more genres and styles of music and therefore isn't tied into just one genre to express ourselves. We dont have to grab a strat and amp to get hyped. There are many other options.
I think the bottom line is, people expected DG to do something. And expectation is art kryptonite. DG has never done ANYTHING, labels, the masses, or critics expected them to do. Thats just not them.
People came to a show, expecting DG to play in person. Evidently, not aware of the fact artists can do whatever they want. And evidently not aware they spoke about doing this for years.
Id be disappointed to if DG were my fav band and I traveled to see them and paid money, or if I was the venue and had booked them expecting them to play in person, but the fact is an artist can and does whatever they want.
If DG wants to record a rockabilly album and release it via their website in 5 months they can and will do so. If DG wants to disband tomorrow they can and will. If DG wants to never make an album again, they can and will.
As fans of a band, or any artist of any medium we deserve nothing. An artist can be on hiatus for a decade, and promise year after year, new material is coming out soon. They have no obligation to deliver on it. At all. As I said the signing of a contract with a venue does change things, but, they essentially followed the contract. They played, its just they played in a manner that the venue didnt even consider.
I think its a mistake to feel like artists owe us something. I want Damien Rice to record a follow up to 9, but he doesnt owe me or any of his fans a new album. Nor does he owe fans any concerts.
And beyond that, as I said, the bands entire MO can essentially be boiled down to this performance art piece. If you are a fan of DG, then you should be aware and cognizent of their entire way of being since 2011.
Its like going to see Tool, and expecting them to play songs that YOU want to hear. I mean seriously. You follow and are a fan of Tool, yet, you get pissed when they dont play songs you want? You know anything about how Tool has operated since, oh, I dont know, 1992?
im not really sure what the big deal is. Venues and whatnot do deserve a show if a contract has been signed, but taking the point even further, an artist really has no obligation to put on any type of show. The contract was for them playing at the venue. They did. basically. Its just not the performance fans or the venue expected. This is a performance art piece. We know for a fact the band is very concious of how they are marketed, percieved, and viewed. I have no doubt all their videos are carefully crafted. Its clear Zach and Ride aint just spewing out nonsense. The whole band is carefully constructed, every message is carefully constructed. They know what they are doing,
Death Grips seem to not give one damn about fans or the media. Its like going to see a Dylan or Neil Young show. If I go see either I know i aint gonna see them placate and make fans and audiences happy. Their whole careers have been based on doing what they want to do. Anyone who listens to DG and doesnt view DG in the same light is out of their gourds.
I think the performance had many layers to it. Maybe a statement on the fans suicide. Its clear they feel the set was art and a performance unto itself, and as the article states, they;ve been planning this, and publicly for years. They've done nothing in their 3 albums worth of dischography or their professional lives to indicate they give a damn about anything other than their art. Pleasing fans or critics, labels, seem to be the anitheisis of the MO of the band.
I definitely miss this show, and that time period in indie. It doesnt feel like "these are my special bands that I like and few other people like". And as I said, being exposed to a new and blossoming musical scene during its ascent is pretty damn cool. I miss the intimacy of the music. It felt like you were in on a secret. And even though millions of people were watching, it felt like the
Bluest Light as Tre is riding in the greyhound. Chasing Cars as Marissa dies in Ryans arms. Eastern Glow as Marissa calls Ryan and they sit in silence. Luke Ward trying to sing Shakin and Seth telling him "lets leave the singing to the band".
What made the OC great was as I said Alex Patsavas. She seemed to get music and images on screen can work together to convey an emotion or idea. The music and scenes were married. And flawlessly.
the indie landscape was vastly different in 2003 than in 2013. In 2003, few people outside Barsuk knew who Death Cab or Modest Mouse were. Iron and Wine was still the guy who put out the lo fi Creek. Bright Eyes had put Lifted. A great album, but its hardly the accessible and more pop sound that is Im Wide Awake. The indie bands had a "you are liking them before they break" feeling. Tribes and genres still existed. There was still a sense of being in on the ground floor of a new genre and movement.
Nowadays, in 2013, the idea that tribes exist is laughable. As the article points out, everyone, hipsters included, love all types of genres and styles. Indie and Pop are indistinguishable at this point. People seem willing to allow a band to go mainstream. If they dislike the artist, its not based on commercial success or pop sensibilities, its because they dislike the music. Selling out is antiquated. People seem less possessive of these small indie bands who suddenly get recognition on this site or P4k. You can still be cool and hip in 2013 and like both JT and Taylor, and also The National. Boundaries dont exist.
What The OC did, was made indie a worldwide sensation, when previously it had been a small local thing. And it made superstars out of the bands it shone its light on.
the oc changed my life, and I dont think im alone. I became Seth Cohen. 2003/2004 was such a breakthrough year. You had all these new indie bands that were being mentioned on one of the biggest shows on tv. And the audience of course was teen girls. The montage music thing was revolutionary, Alex patsavas deserves as much credit as P4k and Stereogum and whatnot, for exposing the masses to indie music. Indie music became mainstream that year. The OC turned indie into a household word, and it was right around the time Trans and Float On were blowing up
What Ive never been able to comprehend is how indie hasn't died off in the 10 years since. We have had few indie rock bands implode or die out because of drug use. Selling out seems not to mean anything. Codes and Keys may not be viewed as revolutionary, but indie hasnt turned on them.
Theres no precendent for it. What other genre blew up, went mainstream, went commercial, became widely known and commercialized, and still remained a vibrant, important and thriving scene for a full decade AFTER the breakout?
So many great moments. The Phantom Planet opening, The Bait Shop, Chrismukkah, Imogen Heap, TJ, Johnny's funeral and For the Widows and Fatherless. Zach and Che. Summer. Coop. The guest house. Seth;s indie starter kit. The Valley.
What was so great about the show was how music clearly was a central character on the show, and the cool pop culture references. Everything from Yakuza to Blankets.
Signs should be higher. Incredibly beautiful song. "At your funeral I was SO UPSET, SO UPSET".
So Here We Are Should be included.
This Modern Love.
Also, Compliments is one of their all time best songs.
to discuss the depth of Mercer's writing. To me, he's best when describing what it feels like to be a 20 something and completely lost. Caring is Creepy to me isnt a happy love song that describes the heights and highs of love. Its a depressing song describing a person who is lost and confused "hail to your dark skin, hiding the fact your dead again", and a person who feels their life is going nowhere and is desperate to change. The naked in the snow line seems explicitly about regret and not taking chances in life. He's staid, bored, and lives a monotonous life.
His lyrics are brilliant because they have so many layers. The main author of this article can seem to view his lyrics as love songs and statements on love. What Zach Braff and myself and others would say, is that his lyrics are depressing and describe accurately what it feels like to be confused and not know what to do with your life.
One song that should have been included is Split Needles. "its like im perched on a blind mans bike, no straws to grab just the rushing wind, on my rolling mind".
And Pink Bullets. The saddest song about cows you will ever hear.
And A Comet Appears.
i agree donnytella,
stroke of genie.us and grey album and napster had NO impact on music and culture at large the last decade plus.
Their impact is nil. I completely agree.
You listen to yourself?
the generational divide i refer to I think is a direct result of being exposed to such a diverse amount of music. Musical genres and genre preferences dont exist. Look at Stereogum. They cover Beyonce and Animal Collective. Sufjan and JT. people our age dont think twice about mixing the music up. Whether thats on our ipod while we take a run. Or whether thats in the studio. Barrows generation wasnt raised like that. If that cant be seen or acknowledge we will get nowhere.
The fact that alot of the remixed and mashed up songs since 2000 have been so amazing, Stoke of Genie..us being the prime example is only a bonus.
Theres an accessibility and "this music is mine too" power in the way music is consumed now. We own the music. We all do. Artists deserve the credit and money. But id much rather live in a world where you can mashup Beyonce and Sufjan, than one where everyone is prevented from doing so
all due respect to the BB, but im going to say for the purposes of this discussion and our generation Stroke of genie.us and Grey album and napster forming were more influential in terms of what we are discussing than Pauls boutique.
its a matter of taking something old and making it new. The jay-z and beatles thing is the perfect example. Grey Album was something new. And it was and still is brilliant. I think most people our age know this to be true. It completely changed the scene.
Anyone who believes twenty somethings are thinking about copyrights and intellectual property while listening to the Grey Album or any other such album, is out of their gourds. We want the music to sound good. One of my favorite tracks of the Stereogum MySplice mashups was U2 and Taylor Swift. It was utterly brilliant to mash those up. I dont think the discussion is, "gee Suzy, the track is sampled and is Taylor getting any money from this, and..."
The only thing that matters is if its a good song. I dont care if its Kelly Clarkson mixed with Lil Wayne, if it sounds good, im into it.
excellent point about Hide and Seek. Its a beautiful song. Im not a fan of the Derulo version, but I dont listen to Imogen and go, "damn...Derulo ruined this for me". The song is as incredible as its always been.
The real issue I think is whats property, whats artistic property. When you make art and release it, do you, and should you have complete control over what someone else may do with it?
and as far as eras are concerned, I think its clear the 2000's have been a breakout era for sampled music, for sound collages and mashups and all that stuff. If you cant see that then i dont know what.
Even putting aside file sharing and all that, I think something clearly happened when napster hit, in reguards to music like a Girl Talk or 2 Many Dj's, all that stuff. It was bubbling up near the surface with Endtroducing, but pretty self evidently, Napster provided people, artists, with free access to music that they hadnt heard or seen before and allowed them to easily mix them together.
Something like Grey Album set off a whole genre and movement.
oh i agree. Anyone that sampling anyone elses stuff is a thief and sampling music is a crime and should be treated as such. Anyone sampling has nefarious purposes. And of course, we can do so much to curb and stop it too. The powers that be have so much power to stop, say a kid from making a mixtape, and using a sample on it. They can stop that, of course.
As far as a potential court case, yeah I do think if it went to trial it would get thrown out.
Again, if Portishead dont like the sampling, they shouldnt accept any money off of people who discovered them via the sample. Simple as that.
if people are old and refuse to view sampling and sound collage as music and as art, thats their bag.
Me thinks no one is scared of Barrow, or anyone else in this issue. Next week we'll hear some new album by whoever, and it will have sampling and will be a sound collage.
Good luck trying to stave off and curb people from viewing this issue like I do. You really think people our age give one damn that musicians take parts of a song they didnt make, and then use it in their own songs? Again, maybe I missed some major social justice movement,.
Barrow is clueless. And anyone claiming to view this issue as legitimate is stuck in 1998.
Just like with filesharing, im sure, that in 2013, the record labels and those against it, will, in some fit of grandeur and pomposity, think that somehow this case be stopped.
Its laughable all these people saying The Weeknd is a shady business character. The Drake issue is nonexistant. This was brought up in the several other Weeknd related new articles this past week. Drake and Weeknd have denied a beef exists. It takes 10 seconds to go on youtube and find this stuff. So thats a non issue. All we have are claims from Rose about Abel. And this. This, the Portishead and Weeknd row, seems to me a non issue too.
He evidently listened to alot of portishead while making Kissland. Wrote them a letter saying it was inspired by them. And talked about it in an interview. Again, what more can Portishead or anyone else want. This isnt some shady guy sneaking away to fool everyone and sneak in a sample while no one is looking. He openly discussed it. Both with the world and with Portishead. You cant get more transparent.
I think I can. I think you can make statements like that. Im sorry, unless im missing some massive social justice movement, I just dont think teen or twenty somethings get pissed off when artists sample another artist.
Its a new thing, The idea that you take parts of another song, combine it with something else, and you have a new song, your own song. Its a sound collage. And I think it isnt just music thats learned about this. You have it via visual art as well, and literature, film. I see it as a distinctly Generation Y, or Millenials doing this.
The idea that you could mix Jay-z and the beatles together and create one of the most critically acclaimed and beloved albums of the decade, seems to me a distinctly Generation Y idea.
You may not be aware of that, of the generational divide, but I think its as clear as day.
The respect for an artists control over their art works both ways. Being for sampling and use of others art, doesnt mean I think artists deserve less control. Quite the opposite.
I just think when you release music or any art, its no longer in your control anymore. And people should be able to, and DO do whatever they want with it. You deserve money and a shout out.
Beyond that its just whining.
Barrow would drive himself crazy trying to battle every person using Portisheads music. I assume there are many mixtapes that use Portishead music, and he's never heard, or we've never heard about it. Good luck to Barrow.
thats sort of impossible now in 2013. Im all for artists rights, but its like file sharing. How do you stop it? Its too far in motion. I think alot of people of our generation, im a twentysomething, view copyright as non existant. Art can be, and is, a mashup of your influences. Thats why I brought up Girl Talk. He took samples from other songs, rearranged them, and created something new. Never got clearance for any of it. Or we have the Grey Album. Copyright doesnt exist in 2013 in the way it did in 1920.
With mixtapes, free albums, filesharing and the like, its impossible to track down any of it. And just like with filesharing I think popular opinion is clearly on the side of the "rebels".
Artists deserve to be paid for their work, but as Barrow said, this isnt about money. The discussion about artists being paid is a whole other can of worms.
I think artists deserve to be fairly paid for any work they do, but once the art comes out I think people
have a right to do with it what they want. And I think the public clearly agrees with me on this.
Sampling as a problem and issue seems so petty to me. Im sure all those funk artists early hip hop acts sampled didnt view hip hop as art either. Now, we discuss the poetry and political symbolism in Tupacs lyrics as Ivy League schools and hip hop is viewed as a legitimate art form.
Again, if Portishead views this as a slap in the face, they shouldnt accept any money resulting from sales directly attributable to people finding out about Machine Gun and buying it.
picking and choosing is infantile. Barrow is out of his depth. I think he was naive in what he was doing, and had no idea people would rush to the Weeknds defense.
You cant have it both ways. So im sure Portishead will be pissed off and refuse to take any money when people buy Machine Gun and or Third off iTunes as a result of this, right?
I dont know what else Abel could have done. He's obviously a big fan, took the time to write them a letter, talked about it openly in a major interview. What else can you do? This wasnt a case of someone trying to slip one past Portishead. Anyone suggesting that is insane.
And again Barrow I think is of the old generation. He'd have to be. The idea that any sample in a song leads people to comment about it, and research the sample and post about it on the original sampled artists youtube, thats basic 101 stuff there.
Samples drum up business for THE ORIGINAL sampled artist.
I think its obvious at least 1 person at the very minimum heard about Machine Gun via the sample, went to iTunes, got Machine gun and or Third.
Barrow should give that money back. its blood money to him
this is a unique case because usually when artists sample they arent open about it. Seems like Abel would have to be stupid to flaunt the sample like that if Portishead denied him the rights. And plus, he acknowledged the sample. Its not like he was hiding it. He openly told an interview about it, and wrote Portishead a letter. Not sure how much more open and transparent you can get. If he did outright sample it, seems like, again, he'd have to be stupid because the interview only drew attention to the sample. Who knows, if Abel hadnt of mentioned the Portishead link in the interview, the beef might have just gone unnoticed or at least not been public.
I think this shows the generational gap between people Barrow's age, and Abel's age. I would venture to guess people in their 20's dont flinch when stuff like this happens. Barrow is of a different era and generation. They came out before Napster, before In Rainbows.
Samples to me are an old issue. The new generation doesnt care. And shouldnt. We have Girl Talk. We have music that routinely samples from other stuff. We have mash-ups. To me its a non issue.
People of a certain age, older people, dont understand that Abel sampling Portishead exposed Portishead to a younger and new audience. Take a look at the machine gun youtube page. Look at all those people saying "im here because of the weeknd". Had Barrow not gotten pissed off about it, the fans flocking to that page would have been alot more accepting and kind.
He dug his own grave. And he showed that, as revolutionary and brilliant and forward thinking as Portishead is, they remain stuck in the 90;s in terms of business savvy.
im going on record saying all 3 mixtapes were flawless. Thursday and Echoes were unfairly overlooked and are underrated as hell. In time I think Thursday and Echoes will be considered as revolutionary as HOB. One aspect of it, I think people failed to grasp was how well planned out the timing of the mixtapes were. HOB sounds like a Febuary album. Thursday is the sunniest and "happiest" of the 3 and sounds like August. Echoes sounds like a late December album.
As far as the songs-Thursday has some amazing songs. The Zone. Rolling Stone. Gone-a damn freestyle! The Birds part 1 and 2.
Echoes is brilliant. DD. Montreal is beautiful with the multilingual touches. You've got XO/The Host, where it morphes midway and that DAMN VOICE. Same old song. And Next.
The albums are equally brilliant.
3 tracks out of 30. The claims that he's made bank off material Rose created is ridiculous. Rose admits the 3 drake posted were ones he was on. But the final version of HOB wasnt his mix nor was he featured on any of it.
He does claim ownership of it all. He said he created the name. He pushed Abel from doing straight r and b into doing the dark and druggy sound we all associate with him, and he claims he was instrumental in the songs.
Im not really seeing the outrage in him working with those collaborators. Wiz is marred to Amber Rose. He is free to work with whoever he wants. And so far his sense of who to collab with has been impeccable. Being mad that he works with someone who is married to Amber is the most absurd thing ive ever heard. Are you insinuating he was trying to work with Wiz because he wanted his wife? Theres never been a hint of that, so you clearly are off your rocker right now.
I posted in the Belong video comments thread a simple youtube search turns up a Drake radio interview, where he says he and Abel still talk and that he respects Abels decision to sign with a new label. Doesnt sound like
You keep refering to this vast conspiracy that Abel is a part of, this vast trail of burnt and scarred friends and collaborators. I just proved that Drake doesnt view Abel as you keep suggesting.
So we are left with one accuser. Jeremy Rose.
"the only artist in recent memory with a trail of use them and lose them friends that seem to have played essential roles in getting where he is". Really?
You can claim that based off one accusation by Rose?
Hyperbole much?
All one has to do is take 30 seconds on Youtube search Weeknd, and Drake and find an interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHx9JgD6Bc
Drake discusses the "beef". He certainly doesnt speak about Abel as if he's pissed at him.
Quoting Drake
"People make their own decisions. He went on to do something that he felt was a great decision. More power to him. I talk to him all the time. Im looking forward to whatever he has coming in the future. I wouldnt call it a parting of ways. I just think, people reach a point where they need to make decisions."
and yeah, for all we know Rose could be making up and inflating how important he was. How do we know its not just sour grapes and jealousy about the fact he voluntarily left a project that become hugely successful? Rose doesnt just claim he helped with a few tracks, he essentially claims ownership of it all. The sound and content, the beats and production, the band name.
as far as jeremy rose goes I dont know. This sort of stuff is hard to parse and weed out. How do we seperate real greivances from a guy who could be, for all we know, just trying to capitalize off the fact that Abel is one of the biggest r & b guys on the planet? Is he exaggerating his importance? We hear his side, but why is his side believeable? I assume Abel would disagree with him. Why is Jeremy;s side gospel?
My reading of the situation seems to be that Rose claims he got Abel to start writing in the style of what was to become the 3 mixtapes. He pushed the dark sound. They formed a group. Then Abel was going in a different sonic direction. Rose didnt want that. So Rose voluntarily left.
Drake put up 3 songs. Then HOB dropped and the world descended upon Abel and the Weeknd. So Rose had left a project that, as we know now, became one of the biggest things to happen in music in the last 2 or 3 years.
From what I understand the tracks Drake posted were ones Rose appeared on. The final version of HOB that we all own arent Rose tracks, they are Illangelo tracks, beats have been changed, the production has been changed.
nah. He has more than enough capital. 3 classic mixtapes. A good live show. And a massive amount of guest features on others albums, a good majority of those tracks being well recieved and becoming hits. Even if Kiss Land flops, which I hope is not the case, I dont think he's going anywhere, nor do I think the public will lose interest.
The quality of the songs on all 3 mixtapes are of such high quality that the hype and press were indeed right. It does feel like Abel and Frank Ocean and HTDW changed and shifted and altered r & b.
Comments