Comments

this is silly to me. Drake put the word out about the Weeknd. But thats about it. Abel had blown up by the time Drake released Take Care. So any buzz as a result is null. As I said in the other comments section no one would care if the music wasnt good. Drake isnt Pitchfork. he cant make or break a band. At the end of the day, if Drake had said "hey world, check out this guy", and Abel didnt have talent, the world wouldnt have given Abel the time of day. Abel's great songwriting, his soundscapes, his vocals, and the fact all 3 mixtapes were masterpieces all speak to why he blew up. Counterintuitive as it may seem, I think the lack of press, the mystery and the "who is abel and what does he look like" buzz that came when HOB hit and in 2011 in general all helped to build his brand. There was a time there, for a good year, all you saw of Abel, was a few press shots, face obscured, and strange and mysterious YouTube videos, which really were just black and white single photo stills of half naked women. Again, this was great business sense on Abels part. And as I said, 2011 was ripe for new sounds in r &b. HOB and Nostalgia Ultra came along at the right time. Timing is everything. Had those albums come out in 2008, I dont know if the world would have been ready for it. He also seems to have blown up as a result of a dynamic live show, Ive never seen him live, but I remember everyone flipping out after Thursday was released and someone posted clips on YouTube of the live show, with backing band. And the breakout and lauded Coachella gig from either 2011 or 2012. The Gaga remix track. Gaga isnt pissed off. She has as much claim as Drake does. As far as people complaining about Abel, at this point we have differing stories. Drake hasnt reponded yet. Abel's story is that they are buddies, still are. So I wouldnt include Drake in your "weeknd wronged artists" list..

nah, drake isnt. I disagree. Reguardless you have two sides to choose from. Abel says he told drake from day 1 what the deal was, he was going his own way and that they are cool. Abel said Drake gets a kick out of the press saying they are beefing. As I said, Abel claimed that neither of them felt the need to update the public about it. Plus it fits into the Weeknd's whole thing which is mystique, mystery, and secrecy. Drake doesnt have reason to be mad. Its Abel's career. Again, why should Abel sign with a label he doesnt want to sign with. Plus, Drake is a fantastic musician, doesnt mean he's a great buisnessman or label head. If the beef is true, seems childish. Both are undeniably great musicians. The "Abel owes Drake" sentiment you seem to be peddling ignores Abel's role in his own art. Id argue that Abel's mysterious and camera shy persona around HOB's release, the lack of interviews, the youtube videos of the songs with half naked women, and the general tone of the songs had as much to do with Abel blowing up as Drake co-signing him did. There was awhile there when you didnt even know if the Weeknd was a band or one guy. Drake's cosign could only do so much. If the music wasnt good, the public would have moved on to the next artist. The whole clearance thing I think is a early 2000's issue and no longer relevant. We deal in a world of Girl Talk and mixtapes on Datpiff. No way Jai Paul got clearance for those movie clips he used in the demos. And sure those are all mixtapes that the artist wont make money off of, but I just think times have changed. I think its almost expected nowadays. Plus anyone with any business sense knows the using of samples on music only enhances the sampled bands stature and thus drums up more business for said artist. Go to the YouTube pages for the Topley Bird, Souixie, and Beach House songs that Abel sampled. Hundreds if not thousands of "Im here because of The Weeknd" comments. Id even argue The Weeknd introduced Souxie to a generation of fans or exposed them to it. Not sure too many teen girls these days are listening to Souxie, or would have been prior. As brilliant as Portishead is, they arent of the new generation. Makes sense they'd be clueless in this area

and as far as the weeknd vs frank debate and the public choosing sides, I think they both won. I think Franks music lends itself to being more accessible and immediate and gets more radio play because of this. Its hard to market and get radio and airplay for abels songs with references to strippers, hookers, drugs, alcohol, and the like. And his musics just darker. Abel doesnt have a song like Lost for example, which is a brilliant song to be sure, but it symbolizes what im referring to.

they both serve different purposes. You can like The Stones and The Beatles, while at the same time having a preference. They are completely different with different references and influences. Frank's music is alot more sunny, more Stevie and classic soul and r and b influenced. And its brilliant. Abel's music is darker, more red eyes after a late night and the inevitable comedown and hangover. The music is rich and complex, and THAT VOICE. I use the music and listen to them for different purposes. I think Abel excels at creating an atmosphere and picture with his music. Even if you dont live the life he describes you cant help but be drawn into it. The voice I think makes it sound easy. Gone was a freestyle. The guys got tremendous talent.

I couldnt disagree more. Abel's the kind of guy who would have hit it big with or without Drake's support. Drake helped, but I just think the climate in early 2011 was ripe for some sort of changeup in musical sound. Nostalgia Ultra hit and HOB hit and it was on... It was ultimately Abel's choice where to sign anyways. One of the stupidest business decisions he could ever make would be to sign somewhere he doesnt feel is a good fit. Abel denies any beef with Drake. He says they are ok. Neither said anything about it because they didnt feel they should have to go to the public arena and say "we are ok". Abel told Drake his intensions of signing with a major from day 1 As far as sampling without permission he wrote them a letter saying the entire album was inspired by them. I had assumed the Siouxsie, Beach House and Topley Bird and other samples of HOB were all without approval too.

I just dont think it really matters. 20.20 part 1 is a classic. There is other songs that are single material on it, but why focus on that album only. Id bet he will release 2 or 3 singles from Part 2. Makes sense to focus on promoting and getting the word out on part 2. You seemed to imply it was bad buisness sense to not promote TV and to focus on TBTN. My point was that anyone who can read, can find out that JT made the right move today. Plus, he put the album on presale, seems pretty simple to deduce why he'd promote a single from part 2 and not focus on a single off part 1. Id argue he made more of a buzz by doing the teasing video and releasing the new song this way, than he would of, had he just released TV as a single.

its not that odd. Thicke's Blurred Lines is the song of the summer, but he makes pop music at heart, stuff that gets played on the radio. Its not too out there. JT on the other hand makes 6 to 8 minute songs that morph, alter and shift midsong. He teams up with Tim to give him state of the art production and beats, and his videos are essentially art. Thicke's great but I see JT as an innovator.

pop is killing it this year. Indies great, but ive been more blown away by pop this year. Get Lucky, Beautiful, Blurred Lines, JT's 2 albums in one year, Tim's comeback etc...

no you dont. TV wasnt a single. The video even proves it. He lists the singles. It isnt on there. JT knows what he's doing. Anyone with a cursory idea of what Twitter is can check out people flipping out over this song. He;s on every single blog in the world right now. I dont think he's hurting himself by releasing the song right now.

I think Kanye is and will be remembered as a legendary artist. I think he's an artist at the top of his game, at his creative peak. And I think as the article talked about, he seems to revel in making things hard for himself. Doing things the hard way, the impossible way. Yeah, I finished half the album, with my back to the rope, in 2 hours while waiting for a plane. And yeah, i call myself a Picasso, and a brilliant artist, but I back it up by providing top quality product. Kanye seems to me, to thrive off the pressure he puts on himself. He loves it. I also think thats just naturally who he is. He really does believe he is a modern day Picasso. The thing that sets him apart from others is that he actually has the work, the body of work to prove it. I can't think of another singular artist of the 2000's, at least in hip hop, who's had a more important impact on culture, art, fashion, music all of it. And even extending it to other genres, he's gotta be among the top 5 most important artists in the 2000s. Changing styles every album is hard. As the writer of the article says. Its challenging. Its risky. Its scary. But I just Kanye flat out doesnt care anymore. At all. He's at a point now where he has a core fanbase who will buy anything he puts out reguardless. His critical acclaim seems to grow exponentially every album cycle. And he doesnt need to sell a single record for the album to be a success. Its like he gets his kicks from being an artist. From pushing himself and the art form forward. Yeezus is an abrasive, off putting record. Its angry and dark. its vulgar. And you see the head scratching from his fans on this one. People dont know what to make of it. Thats why Kanye is a major artist. I dont want an artist who goes by trends or tries to appease his fanbase. I dont want 6 albums that all sound the same. I honestly do think he's the Radiohead of hip hop. Who else does what he does?

Secondly, I also think indie and the mainstreams continued moving closer to each other accounts for the shared love of pop and mainstream artists. Theres no doubt JT, Beyonce, Taylor and whoever else put out fantastic music, and Since U Been Gone could legitimately be called the song of the decade. The lines are blurry, and most people are willing and able to listen to Call Me Maybe or Someone I Used To Know and walk away from them saying that they are brilliant earworms. Who else beyond JT, Beyonce, and Taylor has bridged the mainstream-indie divide? Interesting article. I think its very astute and relevant. As the article points out, selling out, in the indie world no longer means anything. A band that would have been run out of town and drawn and quartered for doing a coca cola or mcdonalds commercial, nowadays that sort of thing is expected and not a big deal. Secondly, I also think indie and the mainstreams continued moving closer to each other accounts for the shared love of pop and mainstream artists. Theres no doubt JT, Beyonce, Taylor and whoever else put out fantastic music, and Since U Been Gone could legitimately be called the song of the decade. The lines are blurry, and most people are willing and able to listen to Call Me Maybe or Someone I Used To Know and walk away from them saying that they are brilliant earworms. Who else beyond JT, Beyonce, and Taylor has bridged the mainstream-indie divide?

I think its very astute and relevant. As the article points out, selling out, in the indie world no longer means anything. A band that would have been run out of town and drawn and quartered for doing a coca cola or mcdonalds commercial, nowadays that sort of thing is expected and not a big deal. Secondly, I also think indie and the mainstreams continued moving closer to each other accounts for the shared love of pop and mainstream artists. Theres no doubt JT, Beyonce, Taylor and whoever else put out fantastic music, and Since U Been Gone could legitimately be called the song of the decade. The lines are blurry, and most people are willing and able to listen to Call Me Maybe or Someone I Used To Know and walk away from them saying that they are brilliant earworms. Who else beyond JT, Beyonce, and Taylor has bridged the mainstream-indie divide?

Interesting article. I think its very astute and relevant. As the article points out, selling out, in the indie world no longer means anything. A band that would have been run out of town and drawn and quartered for doing a coca cola or mcdonalds commercial, nowadays that sort of thing is expected and not a big deal. Secondly, I also think indie and the mainstreams continued moving closer to each other accounts for the shared love of pop and mainstream artists. Theres no doubt JT, Beyonce, Taylor and whoever else put out fantastic music, and Since U Been Gone could legitimately be called the song of the decade. The lines are blurry, and most people are willing and able to listen to Call Me Maybe or Someone I Used To Know and walk away from them saying that they are brilliant earworms. Who else beyond JT, Beyonce, and Taylor has bridged the mainstream-indie divide?

Never undersood the hate for this one. Seems to me its just as revolutionary as any of their others. Returning to a Radiohead version of straightforward rock really wasnt the expectation most people had. We had 2 straight albums of odd experimental electronic stuff. So the change in sound was unexpected as usual. I find the album to be among my favorites. The ondes martenot breakdown in Where I End is incredibly beautiful. The Gloaming is a damn scary indictment of the zeitgeist. And a document of Early 2000's paranoia. Sail to the Moon sounds like a lullaby for the 21st century full of terrorism, war and violence. Backdrifts the main beat/melody is as brilliant as anything they've ever done. There There is legendary, both the song and the video have long captured my imagination.

well deserved. Shining example of what pop can be. Complex, challenging, experimental. Boundary pushing not only genre wise but length wise and what a pop song can be. This is the album to beat. Album of the year currently. And he still has ANOTHER album to go this year. Im sure we all had doubts. Its been 7 years. could he live up to his previous work. Does he still have it? He clearly answered that. Your move Beiber! Ive been listening to this nonstop. Going to be a great listen as the weather turns nice. Imagine sitting on a beach and listening to Blue Ocean Floor. Or sitting on the lawn, sun blazing down, barefeet, listening to Tunnel Vision

i disagree. while i too think the hatred of mumford is silly, the tastemakers putting their spotlight on pop stars as opposed to some unknown band I think is good. Too often i think indie fans would typically ignore a JT or a Beyonce or a Solange or The Weeknd or whoever precisely because they are mainstream and pop. So if p4k or stereogums praise wins over some fans from our side I think thats only a good thing. I also think the fact that JT, Beyonce and Solange are all talented and make great music also has something to do with it. The idea that p4k or stereogum only hypes unknown indie bands is false. One of the most hyped albums last year was Jessie Ware who is straight up pop. Again, this has way more to do with mainstream music and culture embracing indie than it does indie culture selling out. The fact that JT's album is undeniably influenced by one of the indie worlds biggest superstars-Frank Ocean-also illustrates this to a degree. JT's listening to the same stuff we are.

you can feel he's been influenced by Frank Ocean. Album of the year currently. Certainly pop album of the year.

i agree people know when they are being taken for a sucker. But i still fail to see how Mumford or Frightened Rabbit fit into some careerist band. Frightened Rabbit is STILL a small indie band. They've gotten more exposure sure, but to link them with Mumford who are without a doubt one of the biggest bands in the world is just plain silly. I saw Frightened Rabbit in october maybe, and while they drew a crowd, it wasnt sold out, they played for a few hundred. Mumford on the other hand could easily sell out a stadium or arena. They could headline any of the major festivals. Mumford's rise was slow. Slow but steady. When Sigh came out they were some major label big pop band. Sigh no more slowly rose to the top because of the buzz of NME and the like. The Brit and Mercury nominations certainly helped, and no doubt were a complete surprise to the band. Again, I see this way more as the trend we've seen over the past decade than any pop or commercial music push. Back in 2003 or so, Postal Service or Death Cab were relvatively unknown, p4k was still a well kept secret among a few dedicated fans, and alot of bands like Modest Mouse at the time were still just small bands. The landscape of indie in 2013 is vastly different. Your parents and grandparents watch the secret lives of hipsters every week on Portlandia, American Apparel promotes their clothes worldwide, and the Grammy's have accepted indie rock as a legitmate art form. The idea of indie bands in commercials and tv and movies is now so pervasive its become hardly even noteworthy when an indie band liscences their songs for commercial use. Far from the indie world bending to the whims of coporate and commercial culture, I see it the opposite. The commercial world and the mainstream became more tolerant of indie music. It happened with every single band, Death Cab, Modest Mouse, Iron and Wine, Bright Eyes, Bon Iver, Grizzly Bear etc... Lets face it, Mumfords music is like U2's or Arcade Fires or Bruces. It begs to be heard in the context of 60,000 screaming fans in some arena.

this is a topic thats hard to define. Lets be clear Mumford were not always commercial. Sigh no More was released by the band on a small label, and the band was just some small indie folk band at that point. Frightened as well are still a small indie band. Mumfords popularity has more to do with the mainstreams acceptance of indie than it does Mumford creating music to become rich and famous. I think pop serves a purpose thats just as important as indie music. Turning on the radio the purpose of pop music is to cheer you up. to make you feel better. To feel life affirming catchy tunes. I think the mistake is to equate this with the music being less valuable or important or complex than more independent artists. Adele proves this. And she is an exception to the "pop music is always happy". In fact id argue she became the most important pop star on the planet precisely because her music was emotionally resonant, was sad, was angry. Yes her voice has alot to do with it too, but its notable 21 is absolutely an ANGRY record, in capital letters. You miss the point if you think Mumford is some band who rode the coattails of indie hype. Lots of beloved indie bands also released their first albums in 2009.

i so miss this time in indie music. It seemed like there were all these new mindblowing bands in this mysterious and new genre. I just dont see bands like this or death cab or the killers making it in 2013. Its too melodic and beautiful sounding. Who knew of Death Cab back then? I also remember when the USPS used a Postal Service song in a commercial.

There used to be a company that made wallets that had 2 people with headphones on. It was a postal service wallet. Seems to me that pretty much describes the music. This is music to wear headphones to. And you wouldnt necessarily think so. Its not Radiohead or FlyLo where you pick up tiny details. Its more that the music is warm, and wintry, and cozy, and headphones enhance that. I think Give Up is a classic and masterpiece. One of the best albums of our generation. This album was the beginning of the rumblings of indie that would eventually engulf us all. Not too long after you had Trans and Good News, and hot fuss. This is pretty much a blueprint for 99 percent of all the indie that came later. I think the album is perfect. The songs are infinitely catchy. Dntel provides just the right amount of very understated beats and bloops. Seems so out of context in this gaudy apartment complex, stranger with your doorkey.... Dont wake me I plan on sleeping in ooooooo ooooooo... I watch the patchwork farms, slowfade into the oceans arms and from here, they cant see me stare, the stale taste of recycled air... I want to take you far, from the cynics in this town, and kiss you on the mouth, we'll cut our bodies free from the teathers of this scene, start a brand new colony, where everything will change, we'lll give ourselves new names, identities erased... EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE. OOOOO, OOOOO Without a doubt this is an essential indie album, essential indie starter kit album.

theres no need for the probably. Breaking Bad was the best show of the year. Left every other show in the dust. Its at the point now, where even something as insanely brilliant as Mad Men, is playing 2nd fiddle to BB. BB is the greatest show of all time. Period. Its the greatest cast and crew and band of writers ever assembled. I almost feel embarassed for every show not titled Breaking Bad. The show is that good

plus i think it would put an extra amount of pressure on the band. What if one member of the group spent more time making the product rather than working on music. I also think there is a difference between liscencing music and then conversely selling your image and really just in a way prostituting yourself. Grizzly bear got some money for that Super Bowl ad, but it was less about "look at me and my great band", than about getting a paycheck and maybe exposing some new people to the band. The Modest Mouse beer commercial was for the same reason, about the paycheck. The band isnt asked to do anything. They are just liscencing their song. Essentially with a second buisness or a side buisness the band is required to focus on a product thats only real goal is to market/promote and hype the band.

Bands starting their own buisness, I dont know about that. That could be disasterous. Would put more pressure on the band. Selling merch, or liscencing a song on Parenthood takes little effort on the bands part. But creating a second buisness, creating a product, seems like alot of unneccesary work. Meaning, the band would spend alot of time making hot sauce and overseeing that than doing what really matters which is to create music. Even 8 hours a week I feel is a hell of a lot, added on to all the other stuff bands have to do. That would be confusing, stressful, and a huge headache. I also think some bands are more able to do that, create a buisness than other bands. A no name band who is trying to break big at South By, the last thing they need to be doing is coming up with a product they can sell, other than their music. On the other hand, a band like Radiohead, or Pearl Jam, or Trent Reznor, I could definitely see creating some sort of buisness, and they'd have the power, time, and money to pull it off too.

I dont think he's poor, but i also dont think he's rich either. My point about him was that with the success of For Emma, he could have played solo, and sold out venues. Instead he brought a huge band, which he shares the money. So 7 or 8 other people get a cut of the money as well. He;d make way more money if he was just doing a solo Ryan Adams type thing with an acoustic guitar. I also dont know if he makes 10 grand a night that sounds kind of excessive. I think the larger point though is that even with a grammy, and 2 albums that topped everyones Best Albums of the year list in 2008, and 2011, he isnt making millions of dollars. He just isnt. I think alot of it, as I said, has to do with our images of what rock stars used to live like. The fabulous wealth just doesnt exist like that anymore. We all know the bands that are making that type of money, Bruce, Dave matthews, u2, etc... But no one featured on this website makes anywhere near that amount per night or per year. And plus, all those guys Bruce and Dave are making WAY more money on everything else as well, merch sales for those guys must be an insane amount of money per gig. People equate critical acclaim with money and in 2012 that parallel doesnt exist. Ive seen pictures of where James Mercer and Isaac Brock live. These arent mansions. They are just regular people. The Shins and Modest Mouse couldnt be more successful or popular in indie music, but from my impressions both Isaac and James live in a typical middle class house in portland

i dont think Justin muscled his way to the top of the indie world that way. People view Bon Iver as important, because of the emotional connection they have with the music. They identified with his story, or the lyrics, they see themselves in his music. For Emma was a slow climb even though people make it sound like it was immediate. P4k didnt give it a BNM, and for awhile there it was just going from person to person slowly. Then it caught fire. His music caught fire because like all great art, its honest, true and sincere. And Bon Iver is an example of a band I dont see as making a ton of money. He could have easily gone solo post For Emma and raked in the dough at sold out shows. Instead he brought out a what 7 or 8 piece band, trumpet player, sax player etc... And Grizzly bear is really the only band ive seen complain about not making enough money. Cat Power didnt. She was merely talking about how she couldnt pay her bills. Ive never heard Justin complain about not being a millionaire. For the most part, bands seem pretty unapologetic about the ways they have to pay the bills. See The Black Keys for example. I think alot of bands, like alot of us here, cant fathom that a band could be as critically successful and loved and not be swimming in money. Its hard to picture and fathom. The realization that grammy's and p4k love dont necessarily translate into a ton of money I think would be surprising to alot of bands. And I think coming to that realization may be, unintentionally seen as entitlement or whining.

I dont think success in liscencing for tv, film or commercials requires networking skills nor does it require commercially viable music. I think for some reason, the mainstream moved to indie rock, as opposed to indie rock moving mainstream. Sufjan, Modest Mouse, Damien Rice, Death Cab during Transatlanticism, Iron and Wine. All owe some of their success to being included in tv shows. And I dont think of any as particularly mainstream. None really were prior to their liscencing music. Its not like Death Cab was some huge commercial band when Seth Cohen raved about them in The OC. That came as a result of it. They seem commercial now because all the bands are mainstream bands currently. That wasnt always the case, and certainly wasnt the case early in the decade. Plus the non commercial more avantegarde stuff would never make it on tv or in commercials anyways. Same as its always been. I dont expect to hear Death Grips or Animal Collectives early stuff in an episode of some teen tv soap opera. Nor would I expect the band to want that either. And also, from what I understand Alex Patsavas, in my view the single most important music supervisor working in the industry, recieves submissions from hundreds of bands each week. Thats how she and her crew decides what to include in the next episode of Suburgatory, or Gossip Girl. I dont think networking has much to do with it. Sure like anything its more likely if you know Patsavas then you;d be included. But tv and film and commercial liscencing seems to have changed during the rise of indie music. It seems as much about breaking bands as including well known bands. Sure there are exceptions. Josh Radin knew Zach Braff, and Zach got Scrubs to include his song Winter on an episode, prior to Josh even recording an album, and the interest in the song crashed the Scrubs website. But for every band like that, theres 5 unknown, indie bands who view it like I said, they view it as a way of getting exposure, and so they take a chance and send in a submission.

why have so few bands followed the In Rainbows marketing thing. Right after that NIN released 2 albums for free, and i remember Bloc Party and The Raconteurs altered their album schedule as a result, reducing the lead in time, ie We are releasing an album thats coming out in a month or two. and of course this year Death Grips did it. But to me, i'd think something like that is a potent way to control your own artistic vision and music, as well as to get attention and get some money in the process. I dont think of that as gimmicks. Any more that liscencing to film or tv or commercials is. I dont groan when I heard Bon Iver in a film. ' I think as a result of everything we've discussed and read, thats the way bands make money. Merch, ticket sales and liscencing. And also I think bands are more upfront about it nowadays. I remember Jeff Tweedy saying something like he liscenced Wilco for a commercial because he has kids that need to go to college. And that makes complete sense, and I support him in doing that. Thats what makes the Cat Power and Grizzly Bear examples so odd. Someone else commented they make millions but they also spend a ton of money too. Both have liscenced their music. One would think that would, apart from touring and merch revenue, be the single biggest money maker for the band all year. Plus all the benefits it has. Liscencing on a tv show exposes you to millions of new listeners, translating into more merch and ticket sales. I dont see it as gimmickry. Its just the reality of 2012 music industry buisness. The bands have to make money somewhere. If i was in an brand new indie rock band, seems to me the safest bet, would be to try and form a relationship with blogs, do a ton of tour dates, come up with damn good merch thats interesting and unique, have a great website, and send in submissions and demos of music to music supervisors on tv shows and movies. Getting your music heard in a Twilight film or on the soundtrack would be insane amount of exposure.

I very much disagree with the idea that modern indie musicians are egotistical and feel entitled. Thats the interesting thing about all these bands that are familiar to any reader of p4k or stereogum. justin vernon, james mercer, conor oberst, ben gibbard, isaac brock. These couldnt be bigger names in the genre, but at the same time, I dont sense that any of them are living in mansions with butlers and a chauefer and are the type that act snooty to others. Quite the opposite, if any one of them was to walk down any street in america 99 percent of the people wouldnt even know who they were. Indie rock in the 2000's to my view, wasnt excess and rock star debauchery ala Led Zeppelin. Bon Iver and Arcade Fire winning grammy's should have made them the biggest bands in the world. Again, few if any people even know who those bands are. We know who they are because we visit sites that fell in love with them prior to them breaking. The average fan most likely has no idea about the meaning behind Funeral, or about the cabin retreat to make For Emma. I dont think Justin, or Chan, or Ben or James or anyone of them think they are a rock star. Thats whats always felt unique about the indie scene of the 2000's. Not alot of rock star ego. I agree though about oversaturation. Way back when i'd listen to a few albums a year. Nowadays to keep up with stereogum or p4k, youve got to essentially listen to an album a week. Every week theres a new mixtape, or 50 new bands of 2012 we need to hear, or the top 50 albums of the year etc... I think that actually might have something to do with it. A new Nirvana or U2 will never happen again, because music is too fragmented and niche oriented. Arcade Fire is big to us, but they probably sold few copies of The Suburbs compared to Gaga or Kesha. And that fragmentation leads to people spreading the love, their money and attention to 50 or 100 bands that they love, as opposed to only exclusively being into that ONE band that you truely cant live without. I know for me thats true. I dont think its a case of bands acting entitled or an inflated sense of ego. I think p4k and stereogum like all music blogs, promote an essential and important band every single week. With p4k, we might get a BNM band on monday, another on Thursday and another on Friday. Thats an insane schedule and pace to keep up with as a fan. Few people truely engage and immerse themselves in albums anymore. Because, while I listen to Lonerism for the 3rd time, Sufjan has a new 5 disc box set, and theres a new Big Boi album, and a new Godspeed, and ... and... To keep up with all that is insane.

but that said, it is surprising big tent indie bands like grizzly bear and cat power have trouble paying the bills. they arent small bands. And they can tour anywhere and sell out the venue. They are in demand, and create critically loved music. All these bands have sold music to commercials and movies and tv shows, theyve got to be making alot on merch sales, and their shows are selling out. So why arent they getting the money, or who is getting the money? In some ways it doesnt make any sense. A no name band having trouble paying the bills is one thing, but major name acts having trouble, i think thats about something deeper. Something deeper than filesharing or bandcamp, or live shows.

you left off an important aspect of how bands make money in the last 5 or so years. And thats liscencing to tv, commercials and movies. I grew up in the 90's. And the bands I loved made it clear to sell your music for commercial gain, or to a corporations was a sin. Nowadays everyone does it. In the 60's or 70's, youd be shunned or blacklisted for doing a commercial for Budweiser or OnStar. Nowadays bands can do that, and still be critically and commercially sucessful. it doesnt taint their art either. Beyond, p4k and Stereogum and the like, most people find out about new bands via it appearing on some tv show or movie. I would assume the label gets little out of this, the band gets the majority of the profit if their music appears in Mad Men or Parenthood for example. Ive done it a thousand times. I hear a song on a show, and go to youtube to find it. The comments section of songs after an appearance on a show attest to this. Tv and movies are the new radio. And I think times have changed. Bands can do a commercial for the super bowl like Grizzly Bear did, and still retain integrity and artistic control. And the bands get paid. The importance of shows like the OC, and people like Alex Patsavas to the popularity and commercial success of indie music in the last 8 years, can not be discounted.

the idea of a band playing a first live show, or a fairly beginning live show, has always been based around a slow climb upward. Grizzly Bear and Animal Collective and Arcade Fire, didnt start out playing to 10's of thousands of people. They started out playing in front of 5 people at a bar, or at an open mike night where 10 people showed up. Then gradually, through word of mouth, promotion, hype, buzz, and the strength of people saying "youve got to hear this one band, they were great live", the bands fanbase increases. Touring all the time, no doubt has got to be hard, and rough and devastating at points, but its the main way a band rises in stature and gets their music out there. I remember reading about Snow Patrol and how a few years prior to Chasing Cars appearing on Greys Anatomy, and the band breaking, they were playing at a strip club for 10 people. Now they can sell out arenas. Its always been this ways, just more so recently. U2 didnt start out playing in front of stadiums of 60,000. It was years and years of constant touring, touring at places where they made little to no money, and played in front of a few people.

I hear you. And yeah, thats what i was generally getting at. Merch in general, any merch and ticket sales in general goes overwhelmingly into the bands pocket. Cd sales, itunes sales, etc... go overwhelmingly to the label. That was my main point. Until we either come up with a new contract thing, like a union where a label is forced to give the band a good contract and allow them to own their masters, then nothing is going to change. Ive always felt like the discussion about file sharing was silly, because in reality, the band was only going to get a dollar out of the deal anyways, when you buy it physically at a store. You bring more revenue and income to the band when you buy any merch or buy a ticket for a show. Touring live can indeed run bands ragged. As a volunteer at a music venue, Ive seen bands play to sold out crowds, and other times ive seen shows where only 5 people showed up, and the band essentially made no money. The worst was when I saw a band play, and only a few people showed up, and they were donating all sales of their merch to charity, so no matter what they did, they were walking out of there with no money. That said, I think the live show is important. Any band we've cared about has risen that way. They start out playing some tiny venue and only the bands friends show up. Then 10 people show up. The maybe months later, 100 people and so on. It spreads on the quality of the live show, word of mouth and a grassroots campaign. Its been like that, as I say, for all bands. u2, bruce springsteen, dylan etc... They all started like that. Plus its not like trying to sell your cd to people is that easy either. The idea that playing a live show can wear you down. and that selling a record, trying to get it noticed, get it in stores, the idea that THAT is easy or a little easier than playing a live show, I think thats a lie. Both are taxing, and hard. A band could run themselves ragged pitching their record to labels, to stores, to media outlets, to MTV etc... I think audiences sense passion. Ive seen maybe 300 shows in the last couple years. And you get that goosebumps on your body when you see a band playing solely on passion and energy. it stands out. I dont think bands have any other options beyond touring and selling merch at this point. That presents problems, as you point out, but I'd rather it be like this, than based on looks, or payola, or radio plays. I think the falsehood thats been presented by other people is that record sales are the ONLY way to financially support a band. And anyone who has looked at the breadown of where physical cd sales go, can see there are many ways to support a band and help them out. Probably buying a Grizzly Bear cd at the local cd store is the least helpful thing a person can do, in this paradigm. The emphasis now is on live shows, and I think thats a very positive thing.

I think another thing to do is demand artists get fair contracts. Demand that they get to own their masters. Make sure the contract they sign is in their favor. Make sure the label supports them and respects them. The problems we are in, in 2012, have alot to do with all this. Record labels dont look out for their artists, and seek to exploit the artist. Until that changes, you will continue to see financial ruin. Touring and merch are the biggest answers currently. Buying a bands cd never would line the bands pocket anyway. They create 12 songs and painstakingly create an entire album over 4 years and the cd costs what 18 bucks, and the band gets a measly 1 dollar out of the transaction when you buy it at the local cd store? Buying a shirt and poster of the band at the merch table, and buying a couple tickets to their next live show, nearly all that money goes into the hands of the actual artist. Bands should focus on perfecting their live shows, tour nonstop, play anywhere and everywhere, and create some awesome merch thats visually appealing and interesting.

what about Know Your Rights? Joe boils down the essence of american freedom and liberty, into a few verses. You have a right not to be killed, murder is a crime, unless it was done BY A POLICEMAN or an aristocrat. You have a right to food money provided of course you dont mind a little investigation, humiliation and if your cross your fingers rehabilitation. Also the dig at AF is stupid, because the album was never meant as a socially conscious deconstruction of modernity and the emptiness of suburban life. In fact what made the AF album stand out, from the movies, books, music, that have tackled the subject, was that AF seemed to be suggesting the suburbs had a nostalgic value. In fact much of the album seemed to be suggesting that instead of dismissing the suburbs, we should long for it, and not waste our time in life, or in youth. Also the main objective of The Clash was to bring about radical social change and get people on the front lines protesting. AF, while having a political tinge to them, thats never been the main point of the band. Win is not Strummer.

this is a pretty damn good list. A band that made me the marxist anarchist I am today. A couple that were left off were Bankrobber (a life serving one machine, is ten times worse than prison), The Call Up (its up to you not to heed the call up, you must not act the way you were brought up), Guns of Brixton (when they kick in your front door, how you gonna come, with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun, when the law break in how you gonna go, shot down on the pavement or waiting on death row). How do you not identify the best lines and point of The Clampdown-the meaninglessness of getting a job and how you have to "grow up". its a song about the emptiness of modern work culture-"no man living with a living soul can work for the clampdown, The voices in your head are calling Stop wasting your time, there's nothing coming Only a fool would think someone could save you The men at the factory are old and cunning You don't owe nothing, so boy get runnin' It's the best years of your life they want to steal --- Also the best lines in Straight to Hell is the brutally honest-(let me tell you about your blood Bamboo Kid. It aint Coca Cola/Its Rice. Wanna join in a chorus of the Amer-Asian blues.

they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. When No Love was released people, including folks on here, came up with ridiculous conspiracy theories involving Epic and DG. We now know DG was correct and that the label did drop them, that the free album concept wasnt one that was thought up or okayed by Epic, and that they surely disliked the album cover. I wouldnt claim Stefan and Zach as geniuses, but clearly they do have a case for the label trying to control DG. What DG got out of the Epic deal, exposure and money that makes complete sense. And there is a long history of "out-there" and avantgarde bands signing with majors to expand their fan base. But Ive long felt that Epic actively wanting DG as part of their roster is a complete headscratcher. When Epic signed RATM it would have been blatantly obvious the band was going to express a lyrical viewpoint and stance that was completely opposed to Epic's corporate structure. And to expect RATM to include Epic in their corporations are evil rants, should have been 100 percent expected. Same for DG. Exmilitary was out. Released free on their website. DG talks about dark stuff, the music is experimental and abrasive, and Zach has been upfront from day 1 the point of the band is to be pro-gay, pro-feminist, anticapitalist etc... From my point of view Epic got everything it deserved. The press was overwhelmingly antiEpic. in terms of all this. The names are interchangable, Epic, BMG whatever. Its just clueless older CEO's and guys in suits who believe art is measured in units sold rather than the value it holds on an individual level with fans. My life has been changed by albums and bands. I could tell an Epic or major CEO that certain albums have altered my life, but I dont think they would understand it.

So Channel Orange is really cleaning out all the awards this year. I dont know if RS will put that as number 1, but I could definitely see P4k and Stereogum choosing it as the top album of 2012. Who would have thought someone in OFWGKTA, would put out two brilliant albums in a row, with CO being considered something of a modern day classic and masterpiece?

ive always been attracted to the christianity aspect of his music and art, because of how inclusive he is reguarding it. Its something he strongly believes in and is at the core of his being, but he isnt out to convert people to it, he isnt trying to win new people over. And I think that seperates him from most religious music especially christian music. I also think like Bazan, the doubt he expresses, as in Casimir, and other songs, is refreshing and honest, because even though he believes in God and Jesus, he's grappling with the same questions we all have about the scary nature of the world and humankind and how God fits into all that. Ive always felt like the God that Sufjan believes in is the one I want to believe in, he makes religion sound interesting and engaging, in a way going to a church and hearing a sermon might not be. The fact that he crafts such beautiful songs with such gorgeous and mindblowing lyrics also is a major aspect of why he's so effective and why he's such a big deal. Also, he's interesting for his refusal to be pigeonholed. Im sure there are many fans of his who have no idea he is even a Christian. And the Age of Adz for example, was an album that sounds completely out of place for a Christian to create, autotuned, explicit language, songs that focus on relationships with other people rather than God and Jesus.

i dont agree with this at all. We know what DG got out of their deal, money and the backing of a major. The relationship between Epic and DG, flowing that way, makes little to no sense. Epic has signed strange bands in the past, but I dont know of any as bizaare as DG. My example of RATM holds. But RATM was on the radio and MTV. DG will never be on the radio, nor on any mainstream magazine. They just wont. Stefan and Zach were never going to tow the company line. Thats been blindingly obvious since day 1. WHich is why I still cant understand Epic's decision to sign them in the first place. Im not a label head, but I would assume, research, background on artists, lyrical content, the marketability of a band, and of course maybe MOST important is the band and label work well together. I cant see Zach and Stefan bending one iota to a demand Epic had, on any level of the music. From cover, to content, to sound. This had to have been crystal clear. The role of DG is radically different than a major. They create art. Offensive art. And usually artists who do that arent going to be willing to listen to any outside entity telling them how to create. The role of any artist is to expose your art to as many people as you can. For Epic, the role of a major is to make shareholders and CEO's money. Those are obviously radically different ideals. I dont think DG went into it with any genuine happy feelings for Epic and the heads. I do think Epic, on the other hand, went into it ignorantly and naively, thinking they could control the band, its image and content, and how it releases albums. Thats why this album shouldnt have come as a shock, nor should it have gotten them dropped. They arent doing anything image wise, content wise, or release wise differently than Exmilitary. They didnt suddenly change after they signed. Theyve always been like this, which makes the dropping of them from Epic ridiculous. From Day 1 of Epic and DG's relationship, its been made clear DG are indeed as you say antiestablishment and radical What on earth made Epic think they would be able to control the band?