"The taste-makers" and Arctic Monkeys

[mayer]

Nah, I've got a half-dozen friends who, god knows why, adore them, and these friends have turned me on to some great bands in the past, so I gave them a bash.

If a critic who consistently shares your likes and dislikes recommends something it's usual to check out their latest favourite new thing, isn't it?

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'?

My attitude to Arctic Monkeys, suprisingly, is based on downloading a bunch of tracks and listening to them and discovering if I like them.

When my friend Andrew sent me Scummy and Mardy Bum all those months ago, I didn't have a clue what Conor McThingy thought of them, so it was literally impossible for that to affect my preconceptions. All I knew was that Andrew and a bunch of dot orgers were raving about them. The dot orgers are hit and miss I find, so I didn't know what to expect.



What on earth is a "band like Arctic Monkeys" anyway? A band around today?Sheffield bands? Guitar bands? Bands Lalla read about in the NME and got upset about? Bands with teenagers in? I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that phrase.

[dot]

clinics first album was good, damn firefox

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

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

No, I mean the equivalents of Arctic Monkeys stretching back ten years or so. I forget the chronology but we could move backwards through Kaiser Chiefs and Franz Ferdinand, then The Strokes, Starsailor, The Vines, Gay Dad, Oasis, Manic Street Peachers...all those 'No honestly, this time you really should believe the hype' NME-endorsed bands.

I'm not sure how far you could go back, but eventually the bands start to get quite good. When I look at an NME from 1983 enthusing about New Order or The Smiths, I think 'Yeah, fair enough'. I mean, they hyped some terrible bands in 1983 too, but some of them were great.

So I just wonder why I'm always, without fail, disappointed by (what should be) the equivalents of those 70s/80s giants. I know we all like different things, but one of them should thrill me shouldn't it? Just one.

[dot]

Yeah, well, what you gonna do? Maybe the nme have different writers and they don't look hard enough, or maybe bands who want to make it big taylor themselves to nme big-updom. You're looking in the wrong place. The NME has long since been the bastion of good music. Stop looking for someone to hold your hand.

[mayer]

I've just seen the bands responsible for those two LPs mentioned, throwaway, in the same breath, as "hype' NME-endorsed bands", effectively on a par with each other.



This conversation, is over.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

What on earth is a "band like Arctic Monkeys" anyway? A band around today?Sheffield bands? Guitar bands? Bands Lalla read about in the NME and got upset about? Bands with teenagers in? I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that phrase.

'Next big thing' bands. Bands you can imagine being on the front cover of the Guardian Guide with the strapline 'How The Twots saved rock 'n' roll, by Tarquin Titforbrains'.

Bands that produce (due to mainstream music outlets like the charts, TOTP, NME etc being fucked), music that isn't too weird, music that's cut from a vaguely similar cloth to the Last Big Thing.

[mayer]

Bands that produce (due to mainstream music outlets like the charts, TOTP, NME etc being fucked), music that isn't too weird, music that's cut from a vaguely similar cloth to the Last Big Thing.

Yeah, tunes like "The Intense Humming Of Evil" or "To Earth With Love".


*gives up and goes to start another thread*

[dot]

if you won't listen to me then listen to mark

My boys take what I say
Do it the studio way
New equipment all clean
New gear
Clothes mean
I answer and take the calls
No trouble with the law
Turn it up for interviewers
Oh yeah prime movers
I wonder what is next year's thing?
Crash smash crash ring

They've got another side
Pop heroes of the mind
While you suckers queue or work
Money for us and play it up
We have never sold out
Spent hours on a clever act
Phoney advertising quotes that make you buy some raise your hopes
That it's the new leather thing
Crash smash crash ring

The broken backs of the real bands
A million closed minds
Weep for the old glam
Year of the average man
The Worst died because of you
Along with some others too
Erasing off our rainbows
We are men, we have big toes!
It's the new leather thing
Crash smash crash ring


Houdini believed his tricks
That is why he died
Oh I'm not coming out
There may be a film on tonight
Or Eliot's Untouchables
As for new hotels
Look like science fiction films or revival gothic pigswill
Watch the skies, what to think
Crash smash crash ring
[Bramah:] Rocket! / Rock it!


It's the new leather thing
Ba ba ba doo.....
New leather thing

Yow!

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I've just seen the bands responsible for those two LPs mentioned, throwaway, in the same breath, as "hype' NME-endorsed bands", effectively on a par with each other.

Is that more ridiculous than saying Blue Skies by The Needs is on a par with Embarrassment by Madness?

[mayer]

I never said that. I said that Blue Skies was better than Embarrassment.

[mayer]

Of course the latter is a matter of opinion (mine's right, yours is wrong, if you were wondering....), but if you think that "The Intense Humming Of Evil" is "music that isn't too weird, music that's cut from a vaguely similar cloth to the Last Big Thing", I think that's just factually innacurate.

[dot]

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I can only talk about what moves/excites me though, can't I? MSP bored the arse off me - sorry, but they did.

I'm not talking about bands who have a certain sound, anyway - I'm talking about Flavour of the Moment bands. The bands NME goes on and on about. From my perspective, those bands used to be justifiably hyped, but now they tend to be derivative and dull.

[dot]

yeah, it's come round full circle, the nme now create the bands, there's nothing there, nice arse though. Manics were shite, even when that bloke went missing. Hello? Is this personal head butting? Can you still see me?

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

but if you think that "The Intense Humming Of Evil" is "music that isn't too weird, music that's cut from a vaguely similar cloth to the Last Big Thing", I think that's just factually innacurate.

But the MSP hype in NME started in '91/'92 didn't it? So The Holy Bible isn't a fair example to use. As I remember, they went mad for You Love Us - a song which sounded fresh, but wouldn't have alienated all the Nirvana fans too much.

[mayer]

Can't read a word that boy's saying. God bless that Ignore gubbins eh?


*winks*

Nah, I just agree with you so there's no need to post and just say that.

[chand]

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 wouldn't say Franz Ferdinand were a 'flavour of the month' band. I don't care for them, but they're now an actual popular proper band, they've had three more proper hit singles since 'Take Me Out' was big right at the start of 2004 and their new album will be big. People really care about them in the way you care about Madness. Mainstream people, I mean. A lot of indie kids don't any more, if you're talking about exciting new music then no-one's talking about FF now as an example of that. But you know, they've crossed over, they've made it, people are buying their singles now on the strength of the songs rather than NME hype. At what point do you stop dismissing bands as 'flavour of the month'? Four albums? Ten top 10 hits? They've made it on a different level now to NME-hyped bands like, say, The Vines, who never really impacted on the popular consciousness (because they were shit). If you'd called FF flavour of the month back at the arse-end of 2003 when NME kids were cooing over 'Darts Of Pleasure' and the NME was trying to find bands like them to make some kind of scene from, maybe.

But yeah, ultimately I'm a little like you in that most NME-hyped bands and 'next big things' leave me cold, though I do like Arcade Fire. Ditto most stuff in the mainstream, though there's always at least 1 single in the top 40 I really like and I like Kanye West. There's the odd thing I like that crosses over with something like the current indie kid tastes (CocoRosie, Devendra Banhart, Sufjan Stevens, MIA even), but apart from that I do get left cold. But rather than spend too long pondering the ins and outs of why that is, I do what mayer does and go out looking for music I can feel passionate about. I read magazines, I post on music messageboards and take suggestions from people all over the world, I rummage around in record stores and talk to people who work there, I get emails from my local indie stores every week which recommend albums to me, I buy cheap label samplers and sometimes take the plunge and buy stuff by an artist because they're on a label I trust or worked with someone I like, sometimes I just pick up cheap albums cos I like the cover or the name. The internet really has changed the way people get into music, go on an indie forum and they're talking about bands way more obscure than Arctic Monkeys because the alternative audience has really spread out, we're all finding our own niches, which is why the Top 40 is at its most irrelevant now.

Anyway, from doing all that, I have a list on my computer from which I'll eventually make my end-of-year 'Best Albums Of 2005' list, and so far there are 168 albums on it. Some of which I passionately love and will be listening to years from now, and many more of which have been the soundtrack to my year or have influenced me musically. And off the top of my head there are at least five albums coming out in the next month I'm really excited about (Murcof, DangerDoom, Lightning Bolt, Why?, Animal Collective) plus a load of albums from this year I still haven't got yet. I can hardly remember what my point is, except that I still find music exciting. Yeah, the NME is shit, so is CD:UK for the most part and Franz Ferdinand are over-rated, but that's not what's important, the important thing is finding some music which moves you.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Out of interest, mayer: do you hope The Needs achieve mainstream, Franz Ferdinand type success, or do you want them to stay on the same level of fame as they are now? Or does it not bother you either way?

I do think it's odd that Blue Skies wasn't a hit, or didn't get the airplay that would have made it a hit. I mean, it would press people's buttons in the same way that 'Do You Want To' does, wouldn't it? You'd think it would have really broad appeal.

[imitationleather]

I think they should re-release it under their new name. They'll never do that though, will they?

[mayer]

Out of interest, mayer: do you hope The Needs achieve mainstream, Franz Ferdinand type success, or do you want them to stay on the same level of fame as they are now? Or does it not bother you either way?

I want them to sell a million records, cos they deserve to, and it'll mean more people hear the records and walk around with a big silly grin on their face, which is a good thing. Why on earth would I begrudge them success?

Moreover, if Blue Skies went to #1 in the charts and was played on Eastbenders then not only would loads of people hear it, then Mercury wouldn't have included them in their mass-cull, and the LP would be on the shelves, which would also be nice. Without any success or recognition there comes a point where you may well pack it all in, and I want to hear a second and third and fourth album from them.

So of course I want them to do well.

I do think it's odd that Blue Skies wasn't a hit, or didn't get the airplay that would have made it a hit. I mean, it would press people's buttons in the same way that 'Do You Want To' does, wouldn't it? You'd think it would have really broad appeal.

You would. C'est la vie. I think if it was on Domino it would've charted about forty places higher. No evidence, but that's just a hunch.

[23 Daves]

'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.

Well sadly, I disagree with you completely on both counts.  There are actually some Madness songs that I find almost unbearably poignant to listen to - "One Better Day", for example, has some superb lyrics and is an astonishingly well written song.  "Johnny The Horse" is a late-period effort that is downright scathing.  I wouldn't simply write them off as fluff.  It's something they themselves got very self-conscious about late into their careers and perhaps over-compensated for, but I honestly think there's much more to them than nutty dances and whacky tunes.

Then the Pet Shop Boys - "Kings Cross", "West End Girls", "Being Boring"... all these are, to my ears at least, very clever and perioidically lyrically astute efforts.  Just because it's pop, it doesn't mean to say that it's necessarily lacking in hidden depths or impact.  I just don't buy that argument.  

Perhaps the equivalent of Madness now are someone like the Go Team?  Just a thought.  Or even Misty's Big Adventure, to be more accurate, who do have a bizarre comedic performance element thang going on.

[Neil]

I want them to sell a million records, cos they deserve to, and it'll mean more people hear the records and walk around with a big silly grin on their face, which is a good thing. Why on earth would I begrudge them success?

Because you take perverse pleasure in enjoying things everyone else (on here) hates?

[mayer]

Because you take perverse pleasure in enjoying things everyone else (on here) hates?

Context, Neil.

Lalla enjoys winding me up, and I tossed a throwaway comment in his direction implying that I enjoy liking what he doesn't for a giggle. No need to take it as a guiding force in my life, because I certainly don't.

[Neil]

Context, Neil.

Lalla enjoys winding me up, and I tossed a throwaway comment in his direction implying that I enjoy liking what he doesn't for a giggle. No need to take it as a guiding force in my life, because I certainly don't.

It was a question rather than a statement.  And can you not see how I would wonder that considering (a) you said "the minute all the 'Whores started laying into AM, I downloaded another 20 songs of theirs and hammered a bunch in an attempt to force myself to like them more"  and (b) I happened to be watching your AudioScrobbler at the time and saw that you seemed to be serious.

[mayer]

Perhaps the equivalent of Madness now are someone like the Go Team?  Just a thought.

Oooh! Good call. I like One Step Beyond but think that Thunder, Lightening, Strike definitely has much more of a "what the fuck?!" factor to it as a debut album. It's got that slightly too lo-fi thing going on, but that certainly forces you to pay it the attention it deserves in some ways.

Weirdly, the only thing that sounds like it that I'm familiar with is the High Noon/Organ Doner by DJ Shadow, which has a totally different lineup/approach to music making.

[mayer]

It was a question rather than a statement.  And can you not see ...

Even assuming that I was desperately trying to love Arctic Monkeys to annoy people, (rather than just giving their mp3s a fair whack before I uploaded them and said "nah, not my thing" again - having only heard four mp3s of theirs a handful of times about two months ago previously), that doesn't mean that I'd want one of my favourite bands to never sell any records, not have any success, die poor and heartbroken in a shit job when they've got the talent to do well and make music that I'll love for decades more.

Moreover, what VWs love and hate has absolutely no bearing on what anyone else loves and hates. So even if I was a peverse twat who honestly wanted to like <insert bands/comedy that Lalla doesn't like> mainstream success and having records in the shops would have nothing to do with that.

[Neil]

...And (c)  You like Oasis!!

Even assuming that I was desperately trying to love Arctic Monkeys to annoy people, (rather than just giving their mp3s a fair whack before I uploaded them and said "nah, not my thing" again - having only heard four mp3s of theirs a handful of times about two months ago previously), that doesn't mean that I'd want one of my favourite bands to never sell any records, not have any success, die poor and heartbroken in a shit job when they've got the talent to do well and make music that I'll love for decades more.

Just because a band doesn't become absolutely massive it doesn't necessarily follow that they'll end up following the path you've out-lined above, though.  To be honest, I've drawn some conclusions based on things like your posts here, your audioscrobbler profile (your friends list seems to consist entirely of people who listen to the exact same bands as you), and the way you are with mp3s on here.  You will periodically moan about people downloading mp3s that you put up for them without passing comment...and then you do the exact same thing yourself.  Oh, and you were listening to the Arctic Monkeys stuff after you'd uploaded it here, so yeah, I apologise for taking you at your word.

Incidentally, Nuts 'N Gum was write about that Rotherham lyrics being quoted everywhere.  I did a search for Arctic Monkeys and it was on the first site I clicked on.  What's so good about it that even people who hate the band like it though?

[mayer]

Well, most bands that become massive actually release records. Many bands that get dropped and can't get a new deal and have to go and work in a shop... don't.

My friends list is entirely composed of the people that asked me to add them, or the first two people who added me when I first joined up and was reciprocating. It's a function that I don't actually use on Audioscrobbler, so trying to infer anything from that is a useless task.

and the way you are with mp3s on here. You will periodically moan about people downloading mp3s that you put up for them without passing comment

Actually, I've done that all of two or three times, and I can remember each of them. It's either me pimping a friend's band and wanting, for pimpy and selfish reasons, a bit of banter to help my mates out and keep the thread bumped, or, it's the Libertines, where I've posted the mp3s after reading Six pages of people saying "LOL he's a crackhead with no talent, he's a media whore lol", I post some tunes and eveyrone falls silent, or carries on talking about crack or the media.

I've posted a hundred plus mp3s on this site, because I've heard some great stuff which has been recommended on here (two which immidiately spring to mind are splattermac putting up some Regina Spektor and BKT introducing me to Johnny Boy). I don't expect or particularly want people to comment, to be honest, It doesn't bother me.

I like to think that maybe I can introduce a band to someone which they'll like in return. It makes me smiley if it happens. I've had a hand in making someone happier. That's why I started my (non-profit) Record Label.

What's so good about it that even people who hate the band like it though?

It's like the Parrot sketch or something. It's memorable and a bit clever, and is written to undermine a lot of pretension that goes on amongst kids about bands. It's doubly clever, because then the same kids get precious and silly and quasi-cool about Arctic Monkeys.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

I want them to sell a million records, cos they deserve to, and it'll mean more people hear the records and walk around with a big silly grin on their face, which is a good thing. Why on earth would I begrudge them success?

Moreover, if Blue Skies went to #1 in the charts and was played on Eastbenders then not only would loads of people hear it, then Mercury wouldn't have included them in their mass-cull, and the LP would be on the shelves, which would also be nice.

So of course I want them to do well.

But that brings to mind the 'Does success mean they stop being the band you love?' question. If Oasis hadn't hit the mainstream in 1994, do you reckon (assuming they'd stayed together) that their third album would have been as brilliant as their first? Or even more brilliant, perhaps?

In other words, do you think bands need a certain sense of frustration/outsiderness to be good in the first place, and that they lose this as soon as they become hugely popular? Do they reach the point where they can only write songs about what it's like being in a successful band?

It's similar to the 'better on the radio' argument - it's often dismissed as snobbery and I-liked-them-first-ism, but there's a certain truth to bands being at their best when they're culty rather than stupidly famous. When bands are young, they're together for a reason.

I sometimes wonder what Half Man Half Biscuit or The Fall or [insert non-commercial but brilliant band of your choice] would be like now if they'd had a string of massive hits and mainstream press hype about 20 years ago. Would they have gone on to produce really terrible follow-ups? No way of knowing, of course, but it's something that fascinates me.

Without any success or recognition there comes a point where you may well pack it all in.

Love of playing the music for its own sake?

[mayer]

.... Love of playing the music for its own sake?

A band with no record deal, no money, no recording time, etc. can play in as many pubs and clubs for four quid as they like, but they can't take off two months to put the time and money into recording an LP which requires that sort of effort, because they'll get fired and have to live with their mum.

Also, no fucker will hear them. Playing music for it's own sake is one thing. Dylan said in Chronicles (or No Direction Home, I forget), that he never liked practicing, never liked playing music by himself. That he practiced in clubs. Having an audience is important, plenty of music is all about passing on a message, about inspiring and having an effect on people.

If no-one knows who you are because you have 30 pence to promote yourself, then the number of people you can inspire and entertain is radically diminished. If you have a hundred thousand pounds to get on the radio and in newspapers, then people can hear you and fall in love with you.

I don't think there's anything mercenary about that.



Re. Bands getting big and going crap or getting too insular. Sure that happens sometimes, but so what? Sometimes the opposite is true.

Manic Street Preachers didn't get interesting till they sold a lot of records, The Beatles and Beach Boys arguably didn't release their best works till they were superstars, Dylan didn't release his best stuff till five years into his career. PiL never hit the big time and still got progressively worse.

I don't think there's an easy rule of thumb to this.