"The taste-makers" and Arctic Monkeys

[TJ]

Well, it was such an insipid comment to make, and was hardly original in the context of the thread. Had someone made a comment along the lines of "Peep Show - saw this lot for the first time today. I've seen funnier comedians at the bottom of the bill at a local 'new comedy' showcase" you'd expect them to stick around and give an argument, whether you agree with them or not.

I don't see why SE has to be the stunted whiny brat little sister of CC is all.

It doesn't. As far as I'm concerned the comment made was a valid one, because most people who've been around here for a while will know of my (admittedly very minor) music world links and probably see it as the genuine assessment it was meant to be, rather than throwaway flippancy.

Like I say, I've been right about some bands, wrong about others (I never for one second thought The Coral would do well, although I still think they're absolute wank), but Arctic Monkeys just didn't move me one way or the other, which is the worst musical offence you can commit really.

[mayer]

Incidentally, the last new band (apart from Automation, but I can't really comment because I know them) to really excite me were The Soho Dolls, but while they're great live they haven't really managed to nail it in the studio yet. They're definitely ones to watch though.

Oh dear god, please tell me that's a wind up.

The only Soho Dolls video I've seen was the godawful one for the godawful sub-Client 80sripoffshite "Prince Harry". I can't really describe how much venom I have for them.

Where's imitationleather? He insults The Soho Dolls much better than me.

Ladytron exist and are brilliant. The world doesn't need someone ripping off 80s electropop totally devoid of style, class, talent, originality or charisma, which is what The Soho Dolls do. And the video for Prince Harry gives me an awful headache, and is a wannabe Streetsy load of toss.

EDIT: Typos

[Nuts 'n Gum]

, I was 7 when OK Computer was released so I'm still waiting for that band that will come and change my life. .

even i feel old after that.

[jimmy jazz]

but Arctic Monkeys just didn't move me one way or the other, which is the worst musical offence you can commit really.

I hate it when you do that, you sum things up better than I can in a sentence. That's what I'd say about all those bands up there.

[TJ]

Oh dear god, please tell me that's a wind up.

The only Soho Dolls video I've seen was the godawful one for the godawful sub-Client 80sripoffshite "Prince Harry". I can't really describe how much venom I have for them.

Like I said, they haven't nailed it in the studio. And Prince Harry was an awful song, I'll happily concede to that. But they were fucking fantastic live.

Ladytron exist and are brilliant. The world doesn't need someone ripping off 80s electropop totally devoid of style, class, talent, originality or charisma, whuich is what The Soho Dolls do. And the video for Prince Harry gives me an awful headache, and is a wannabe Streetsy load of toss.

Is this the point where I can show off about having seen Ladytron when they were still a five-piece guitar-led outfit called Chevette?

[mayer]

We Are Scientists: If sitting through New Order wasn't bad enough, then listening to all the bands that wanted to be New Order was. So here is a band that want to sound like they're trying to sound like New Order. Amazing.  

I've heard the name but none of the tracks, but now I want to!

" If sitting through New Order wasn't bad enough" - that's just blashphemy.

Also, I can't think of a single band ever that wanted to be New Order, or at least pulled it off at all. I still think they're a stunningly original band in what they did.

[mayer]

Is this the point where I can show off about having seen Ladytron when they were still a five-piece guitar-led outfit called Chevette?

Only if I can tell my mate "some bloke on the internet was harping on about seeing your sister's band when they were a guitar led outfit called Chevette".

[TJ]

Also, I can't think of a single band ever that wanted to be New Order, or at least pulled it off at all.

The Paris Angels?

[mayer]

Also, I can't think of a single band ever that wanted to be New Order, or at least pulled it off at all.

The Paris Angels?

Not heard of them, what would you recommend I look out for?

[TJ]

Only if I can tell my mate "some bloke on the internet was harping on about seeing your sister's band when they were a guitar led outfit called Chevette".

Looks like we have some mutual friends(ish) then! Although Reuben, Mira and Helen weren't in Chevette, so it doesn't really work.

[jimmy jazz]

We Are Scientists: If sitting through New Order wasn't bad enough, then listening to all the bands that wanted to be New Order was. So here is a band that want to sound like they're trying to sound like New Order. Amazing.  

I've heard the name but none of the tracks, but now I want to!

" If sitting through New Order wasn't bad enough" - that's just blashphemy.

Also, I can't think of a single band ever that wanted to be New Order, or at least pulled it off at all. I still think they're a stunningly original band in what they did.

Surely The Killers (musically) and The Bravery (completely) are just trying to be a glossier New Order? There's probably a few other bands in the mix, but that's what I heard. And If you thought those 2 were dire, wait until you hear WAS.

And as for New Order themselves, sorry, they've never sat with me. It might take a few months until they do, like The Cure. Also, mayer, what do you think of The Mystery Jets? I can't wait until they record with soem decent recording gear, because they really are good.

[TJ]

The Paris Angels?

Not heard of them, what would you recommend I look out for?

The whole "Sundew" album's pretty good, especially 'Fade', but these days you need a hefty packet to get hold of a copy. Their finest moment is thankfully their easiest single to find 'Perfume' (originally released on Rough Trade as 'All On You') - a staggeringly good track, and one that was later stolen virtually note for note to form the arrangement of Madonna's 'Ray Of Light'. If you're ever in the CaB Soulseek room I'll do a rip of the album.

[mayer]

Surely The Killers (musically)

They only sound a little bit like a quarter of "the best of New Order", which is a very revisionist compilation which doesn't really represent the band at all.

The Bravery (completely)

I'll pretend you didn't say that.... :-)

what do you think of The Mystery Jets? I can't wait until they record with soem decent recording gear, because they really are good.

I've not seen them, but I've heard mixed things about them from friends. (Half of them love them and think they're very different from what's around now, the other half.... disagree).

I know they've done three or four gigs with Angels Fight The City, who I adore, so I really should pull my finger out and download something and get my splintered arse off the fence.

[jimmy jazz]

Surely The Killers (musically)

They only sound a little bit like a quarter of "the best of New Order", which is a very revisionist compilation which doesn't really represent the band at all.

That's where I've been going wrong then, what should I look for instead?

[mayer]

For an overview, Substancehas all the proper versions of the singles, before half of them got their 94 sheen. Also, most of the singles weren't on the albums (at least not the vinyl albums), so it's worth getting this.

Then I'd say Technique (acid, dancing, guitars and crap lyrics) is the best studio LP. Followed very closely by Low Life (more atmospheric, worse lyrics).

[hulahoops]

Oh dear god, please tell me that's a wind up.

The only Soho Dolls video I've seen was the godawful one for the godawful sub-Client 80sripoffshite "Prince Harry". I can't really describe how much venom I have for them.

Like I said, they haven't nailed it in the studio. And Prince Harry was an awful song, I'll happily concede to that. But they were fucking fantastic live.

Having to sit through the Soho Dolls was one of the most boring and tedious experiences of my life.    Couldn't have been more than 45 minutes, but it felt like about five days of the same boring beat and whiny voices over and over.

Ditto Mystery Jets, which made me run to the toilets to hide till they were over.   Overblown prog wank.

[George]

Life imitating Barley:

Bedouin Soundclash

What next The Tatooine Cumshot?

Poor Tusken Raiders.

Sob...
                                                                                                                                   .
                                                                                                                                   .
.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

You've already said you don't think there is anyone really really good out there.

No, I've never said that - only that Flavour of the Month bands (the Franz Ferdinands and Kaiser Chiefs type acts) are often very derivative and average. I freely admit I'm a lazy bastard when it comes to hunting around in nooks and cranies, but I don't see why mainstream acts shouldn't be brilliant.

If the movers and shakers have to put their encouragement behind bands with broad, paper-selling appeal, why don't they find a band that's extraordinarily good rather than just OK? If it was 1979, they could have picked Madness couldn't they? They wouldn't have picked Showaddywaddy. So forgive me if I conclude there aren't any brilliant mainstream bands out there, only mediocre ones.

[mayer]

Heh, I was right.

You definitely do the getting the song-name/band-name wrong thing intentionally, like Ian Hislop pretending to not know who Alex Ferguson is. Don't stop though, it's cute!

The entire music industry is different in 2005 than 1979, there's a lot of musical water and history and industry and money and whatnot gone by, and I don't think we can do anything about it, except stop thinking that HMV and the NME are on "our side", and instead put some elbow grease in.

I agree it's different, but I think your approach is much less worthy (complain about what the NME pimps these days compared to the old days), than other's (reject the NME and use these new avenues of the internet and whatnot, recognising that times and things have changed).

[monkhouse terror]

I was 7 when OK Computer was released so I'm still waiting for that band that will come and change my life. Get me while I'm still impressionable, dognammit.

Blimey, someone younger than me. Commence the cheek-pinching and hair-ruffling!

I feel crap and old and uncool already for not knowing of these bands, I can't stop understanding the kids just yet, I can't even grow a decent beard! How am I supposed to be a scary old man who isn't 'down' when I'm unable to be extremely hairy and have proper wild eyebrows?

[23 Daves]

I hate to defend the NME here, but they were actually raving about the Arctic Monkeys seven or eight months ago, before they were properly signed(?).  I swear I didn't dream all this.

All this is irrelevant to the discussion about whether they are toss or not, but still, there has been much raving about them since I got back into the UK, I'm sure of it.  Especially online.  Just shows that even with the absence of fully paid up critics people can be wrong, I suppose.

[mayer]

I hate to defend the NME here, but they were actually raving about the Arctic Monkeys seven or eight months ago, before they were properly signed(?).  I swear I didn't dream all this.

That's fair enough, like I've mentioned a good few times, I don't read the NME! (I do read The Guardian though, and Conor wasn't raving about them hard enough for it to spill over into the broadsheets half a year ago).

All this is irrelevant to the discussion about whether they are toss or not...

Hehehe, of course, the issue you're addressing was the actual issue at the start of the thread and of the article in question before the inevitable "who are they?!" and "they're gash" comments came a-flooding.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

You definitely do the getting the song-name/band-name wrong thing intentionally, like Ian Hislop pretending to not know who Alex Ferguson is. Don't stop though, it's cute!

It was meant to be 'the Franz Ferdinands and Kaiser Chiefs type acts', but I used an upper case T. I wasn't calling them The Franz Ferdinands. Strictly speaking, I should have said 'the Franz Ferdinands and Kaiser Chiefses', but that sounds awful.

Anyway, we all know that Arctic Monkeys are called 'An Arctic Monkeys', which is correct no matter how awkard it sounds.

The entire music industry is different in 2005 than 1979, there's a lot of musical water and history and industry and money and whatnot gone by, and I don't think we can do anything about it, except stop thinking that HMV and the NME are on "our side", and instead put some elbow grease in.

I agree it's different, but I think your approach is much less worthy (complain about what the NME pimps these days compared to the old days), than other's (reject the NME and use these new avenues of the internet and whatnot, recognising that times and things have changed).

How has it changed, though? Are you saying...hang on, let me just assemble my straw man...

that mainstream acts aren't as good as they used to be, so we should just widen the goal-mouth and accept what we've got?

or that none of the good music 'out there' is in the mainstream (ie, in the NME), so there's no point getting wound up about it?

Because if the latter is true, then there's no point even giving The Franz Ferdinands, The Kaiser Chiefs or An Arctic Monkeys the time of day is there?

I mean, the 'Where's the equivalent of Madness in 1979?' question seems quite simple to me. Either

(a) There isn't such a band - Arctic Monkeys are as good as it gets

or

(b) There are mainstream bands as good as 1979 Madness, but they'll never have mainstream success because they're too odd (ie, good) to fit in with Conor McNicholas' agenda.

In both cases, why waste your time?

[mayer]

How has it changed, though?

- The existence of the internet (y'know, the biggest thing in telecommunications since the Television, or quite possibly the telephone)

- The shift in readership of magazines (specifically the NME), both in a reduction of readership, and the age of that readership.

- The increased music coverage in Broadsheets, on regular television and so on.

- The fact that I can go into my parents front room and watch 15+ dedicated music channels.

- The fact that pop is middle aged, and if one thing is true, it's that things change in time. Some dead Greek bloke said that all things are in a constant state of flux. (Another said that things never really change, but he's wrong)

- The CD/mp3 music compression revolutions.

- iPods/portable 4GB+ music players affecting how people listen to music.

- Many more it's too late to think of.


I'm not sure why you're so loathed to accept that these factors may affect the music industry and that young people consume pop in a different way to how they used to twenty years ago.

that mainstream acts aren't as good as they used to be, so we should just widen the goal-mouth and accept what we've got?

Nope.

or that none of the good music 'out there' is in the mainstream (ie, in the NME), so there's no point getting wound up about it?

Nope, not "none". We both know that we like different bands. The NME has covered some of my favourite bands of the last ten years. They're still my favourite bands even though you think they're shit. I still like Underworld, Oasis, The Libertines, Blur, (half the) Arcade Fire (album), and many more.

I do have loads more sources than the kids in 1979 who just had the NME/Sounds/Maker and The Old Grey Whistle Test/"Ready Steady Go/TOTP to scope out new bands though. Things change, they shift, and some of us have chosen to adapt to that.

(a) There isn't such a band - Arctic Monkeys are as good as it gets

Nope.

(b) There are mainstream bands as good as 1979 Madness, but they'll never have mainstream success because they're too odd (ie, good) to fit in with Conor McNicholas' agenda.

Nope. I think Oasis are better than Madness. I think The Needs, Underworld and Radiohead are better than Madness. And I like Madness. Again you've excluded the possibility that people have different tastes to you. You can't even imagine someone liking something you don't, can you, my little solipsist?



Though,

In both cases, why waste your time?

Assuming (b) was true. Why waste your time what? Bitching about the NME? Quite! That's what I've always been saying!

Why "waste your time" putting a bit of effort in and finding brilliant rock and roll music to be a soundtrack of your life, to take drugs, fuck, dance, and have fun to, well..... y'know... it's kind of nice!

[dot]

'Where's the equivalent of Madness in 1979?

What's that supposed to mean? I was into madness when I was little but saw them as a crappy pop band, same as the pet shop boys, I say crappy because, well, even when the pet shop boys were my favourite band, I knew they had nothing to say.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Things change, they shift, and some of us have chosen to adapt to that.

Adapt in what way though?

[mayer]

Things change, they shift, and some of us have chosen to adapt to that.

Adapt in what way though?

I don't buy the NME like I did in 1996, I listen out for what BetaKarraTene and slim are listening to. I follow links on MySpace. I read dot org and other messageboards, I follow what people who like what I like listen to on Last FM, I chat to people in the Soulseek room about what their likes and dislikes are. I sometimes have a gander at Pitchfork, I look at music blogs like Klepshimi (RIP) or Mystery and Misery, I see bands supporting bands that I like and fall in love with them. I read publications better aimed at my tastes, like Word, and hopefully in time, State of Play.

That sort of stuff.


I don't stay in my bedroom crying into a rubbish issue of the NME because Top Of The Pops is shit, because I'm too busy doing all that stuff up there, and don't see the point in wasting my time with that.

Actually, I do think it's a shame that great institutions like NME/TOTP/Maker/XFM have gone to hell, I sighed when it happened, and in the case of XFM and Maker got a little upset, and wrote the odd letter, but when it came down to it, we lost with those outlets, and I decided to get up and look elsewhere rather than make a career out of just whinging incessantly about how XFM was so much better in its first few years, or whatever.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Again you've excluded the possibility that people have different tastes to you. You can't even imagine someone liking something you don't, can you, my little solipsist?

No, I just find it odd that all these flavour-of-the-month tipped-for-the-mainstream bands (of the kind mentioned by the movers and shakers in that Guardian article) leave me cold. You'd think at least one of them would make me think 'Fucking hell, that's incredible' wouldn't you? You'd think, purely by law of averages, one of those NME-hyped bands might light my fire in the same way that Madness (or any number of brilliant late 70s/early 80s bands - take your pick) did. But they never do.

I heard Embarrassment for the first time in years the other day, and thought it was mesmerising. Such a simple song, bursting with energy, and it's actually about something other than the singer's shoes. That, to me, is what pop's about. So is it wrong to be disappointed when Arctic Monkeys, who are supposed to be the next big mainstream success story, don't produce anything remotely as good?

[mayer]

Well, ignoring the fact that Embarassment was Madness's sixth single, and the Arctic Monkeys have barely released one (it isn't relevant to me, because I don't really rate AM, though I thought I'd just mention it).



I heard Blue Skies for the first time in hours the other day, and thought it was mesmerising. Such a simple song, bursting with energy, and it's actually about something other than the singer's shoes. That, to me, is what pop's about. So is it wrong to be disappointed when (My Girl aside), Madness, who are supposed to be one of the classic big mainstream success stories from the past, never produced anything remotely as good?


What on earth's your point? Apart from "mayer and Lalla like different music.... still".



EDIT: Though, I'm impressed with how many bands you listen to in search of the wow-factor, I must admit.

No, I just find it odd that all these flavour-of-the-month tipped-for-the-mainstream bands (of the kind mentioned by the movers and shakers in that Guardian article) leave me cold. You'd think at least one of them would make me think 'Fucking hell, that's incredible' wouldn't you?

I've not heard a single note by more than four of them.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I don't buy the NME like I did in 1996, I listen out for what BetaKarraTene and slim are listening to. I follow links on MySpace. I read dot org and other messageboards, I follow what people who like what I like listen to on Last FM, I chat to people in the Soulseek room about what their likes and dislikes are. I sometimes have a gander at Pitchfork, I look at music blogs like Klepshimi (RIP) or Mystery and Misery, I see bands supporting bands that I like and fall in love with them. I read publications better aimed at my tastes, like Word, and hopefully in time, State of Play.

Oh yeah, I understand that the outlets have changed/widened hugely. I'm just confused about your attitude to bands like Arctic Monkeys - is your attitude 'Well, they'll probably be a bit bland considering someone as clueless as Conor McNicholas likes them, but I might as well give them a go while I wait for something decent to download...hey, that's not too bad actually'? Or do you think 'There's a chance they may just happen to be brilliant'?