QuoteReckon the Fleet Foxes started it all off. That was a genuinely brilliant album but radio airplay overkill has ruined Mumford & Sons for me. Plus the singer's 'arrr harrr arr arrrr arrr' vocal stylings grate on me too.Originally Posted by Wolfie
Just a general discussion thread for anyone who has a thing or two to air about music in general.
A random thought that strikes me - What's the crack with all of this new folk business - eg, Mumford and Sons etc etc. It appears to have an "indie" sensibility with some "folk" tacked on.
Personally I think its much less interesting and innovative to what the early incarnation of James were producing 25 years ago.
Quoting years at random since 1975
Reckon the Fleet Foxes started it all off. That was a genuinely brilliant album but radio airplay overkill has ruined Mumford & Sons for me. Plus the singer's 'arrr harrr arr arrrr arrr' vocal stylings grate on me too.
'Fascists dress in black and go round telling people what to do, where as priests.....'
Welcome to getting old!
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Sad but true Macy,everybody thinks the music that was around in their "formation" years was the best,no comparison between the likes of Joy Division,Echo & The Bunnymen etc with the likes of Mumford & Sons & The Kooks etc (and I don't care what age you areWelcome to getting old!)
Having said that I like to cherry-pick the newer stuff and like Biffy Clyro,Paulo Nutini and Lady Gaga
Last edited by the 12 th man; 10/09/2010 at 10:51 AM.
Point taken - but I don't categorise music as "old and new". For me, its either "good or bad" - regardless of what era its from.Welcome to getting old!
Quoting years at random since 1975
Agree in relation to Fleet Foxes and its resultant creation of a "scene" is as old as the hills - probably as far back as the 50's.
Quoting years at random since 1975
The Mumford and Sons album is a pretty good album but those two singles have been played to the point that i would skip past them if was listening to it.
I happen to like that "new folk" movement thing thats happening.
Im lucky enough to have a friend who has no interest in sport and lives for music so i get recomendations off him and he keeps me up to date on whats happening gig wise and the like.
He actually plays in a band so i better plug them ...We Should Be Dead.
My Goal Is To Deny Yours...
The Rifles are pretty cool!!
I am still listening to an awful lot of stuff from the 70s and then odds and ends since then. I am also finding a lot of stuff from specific years having a resonance with me, so I'd say there is something in what Macy says. Particularly regularly bands I listen to are Irish bands of the late 80s that weren't unduly influenced by U2.
That said, some peculiar recent bands are chiming with me. Au Revoir Simone and Vampire Weekend come to immediate mind, for example. Most new bands do get a very cursory listen from me. I find that every year you have a coterie of people banging on about some "indie" group (Zutons, Kaiser Chiefs, Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys, Mumford & Sons, etc.) being the best band in years and that no, that crowd they were raving about last year are not nearly the band this one is. And they will release one catchy track that is so heavily airplayed that I will recognise it from just going to the shops. And then they will disappear, to be replaced by the next "Next Big Thing". So when I hear a band being raved about these days, I will normally ignore them, and take up with something I found by chance on someone's website, or on someone else's mp3 (just remember kids - if you must share earphones, use a condom).
That question was less stupid, though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
Help me, Arthur Murphy, you're my only hope!
This phenomenon is now so prevalent that it actually happened in the middle of an episode of Buzzcocks not so long ago.*
I do like to keep the hand in with new stuff all the time, but have at long last become a bit wary of the banging on about new acts or albums, and in particular pay attention to the age profile of the bangers-on, funnily enough. Experience has shown that if a new band appeals to early twenties kids it's as well to take a pause before getting on board, not always, by any means, but as well nonetheless. I've enough CDs now that have been listened to for a week and then never again, they mightn't eat anything but they don't half take up space!
Still love hearing new things though, but the golden age of the late '80s to mid '90s are where it's at at the minute. It's Great When You're Straight... Yeah!
*not really, I know.
Last edited by stann; 13/09/2010 at 2:54 PM.
more bass
Yes - the last few posts are accurate testament to the fact that age and experience will colour your view of "the next big thing" so to speak.This phenomenon is now so prevalent that it actually happened in the middle of an episode of Buzzcocks not so long ago.*
I do like to keep the hand in with new stuff all the time, but have at long last become a bit wary of the banging on about new acts or albums, and in particular pay attention to the age profile of the bangers-on, funnily enough. Experience has shown that if a new band appeals to early twenties kids it's as well to take a pause before getting on board, not always, by any means, but as well nonetheless. I've enough CDs now that have been listened to for a week and then never again, they mightn't eat anything but they don't half take up space!
Still love hearing new things though, but the golden age of the late '80s to mid '90s are where it's at at the minute. It's Great When You're Straight... Yeah!
*not really, I know.
I certainly take most positive reviews of new bands with a pinch of salt and reserve judgement. I think the Arctic Monkeys were the last young band to truly live up to the hype.
My formative years were based around the Roses, the Mondays, The Manics, Ride, Pixies - so we were spoilt for choice thinking back.
There's nothing new in the "next big things" failing to deliver on the hype.
I've just a particular aversion to these media created scenes in order to lump certain bands together - Britpop is probably the most well known example.
I remember a "shoegazing" scene in the early 90's that involved the excellent Ride and a further series of no mark bands, "Baggy" involved the Mondays and threw chancers such as Northside and the Farm a lifeline. The list goes on.
Quoting years at random since 1975
I'm not great to keep up with new stuff but never was. But I just realised recently who lady gaga actually reminds me of ...Taylor Dayne -yes Taylor Dayne and a whole host of other somewhat slapped Madonna wannabees from the arse-end of the 80's with her.Sad but true Macy,everybody thinks the music that was around in their "formation" years was the best,no comparison between the likes of Joy Division,Echo & The Bunnymen etc with the likes of Mumford & Sons & The Kooks etc (and I don't care what age you are
Having said that I like to cherry-pick the newer stuff and like Biffy Clyro,Paulo Nutini and Lady Gaga
...and then there's Paulo Nutini - I wish I'd been a fly on the wall at the initial rehearsal stage for his band because I think the conversation had to have gone some thing like "okay guys -ye play like ye're the pub band in that scene from Star Wars where Han Solo shoots the bounty hunter and I'll sing over the top of it in a manner that suggests I attend speech therapy as a consequence of a serious brain injury suffered in an RTA ...and we'll see how that goes".
I just dunno ...there's also something suspiciously "cabaret" in there that's entirely in keeping with a certain Irish pallette -see also Imelda May, Jack L, Jerry Fish... I'm sure there's more.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
You have to understand that 99% of Lady Gaga's fans have no idea who Taylor Dyane is. To them she is unique and original.
But lets be honest nearly every artist can be compared to someone or has taken influence from someone.
Should we not like a rock band because they sound like the Stones?
Or an Indie band becasue they sound like the Smiths?...etc.
I think we are too snobbish when it comes to music, why must we analyse it to death? Just bleedin' enjoy it!!! and if you dont turn it off and listen to something else!
My Goal Is To Deny Yours...
I actually completely agree with you -and Indie kids and Indie culture are amongst the worst offenders for sanctimony and hypocracy (and I'm by no means immune). See how they deride the likes of Mika (who IMO deserves derision to some degree) for apeing his heroes Freddy and Elton -while out the other side of their mouths they'll hail as 'seminal' any number of thinly veiled Joy Division tribute acts.
Like Frank Zappa said ...we might as well be dancing about architecture.
I'll have to just turn it off because it's often all just a bland tasteless mulch. But as has been said -everyone thinks to some degree that the music from their salad days was better -and yet there is a curious trend of regurgitation that goes on as well. A lot of the punk thing revisited ideas and stylings from the '50's and there was a straight up ‘50’s resurgence in the mid 80’s caused by bloody ads for denims. Back in the late '80's/very early '90's every band HAD to have a hammond organ -like it'd been agreed at some great conference that '60's records were the absolute biz. ...and today -we'll today we've the Killers sounding like Alphaville on steroids with that feckin made –of-mdf synthesizer that stops being ironic by the time the second chorus rolls around.
Then there’s yer one La Roux that sings Bulletproof indulging in her version of purchasing hippy wigs in Woolworths as her beloved 80’s yuppies might’ve done for school re-unions.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Melody Maker and NME at the time were very adept at creating those 'scenes', but in certain cases they did give a leg up to some bands who were worth it - the wonderful Lush and Curve stand out in the case of the shoegazers, and early Blur, and IIRC acts like My Bloody Valentine and Galaxie 500 were lumped in with them as well, though not very convincingly even at the time.
As regards "baggy", there were a lot of top bands over and above the Mondays, not all from Madchester either. Inspiral Carpets, Flowered Up, The Charlatans, The Real People, Paris Angels, World Of Twist. Each of those could hold their own against chancers as you say like Northside and the Farm, cynical bandwagoners like the Soup Dragons, or just, ahem, Candy Flip.
On the other hand there were some truly awful scenes invented too. Who remembers Romo? Orlando, FFS! That's about the point I gave up reading Melody Maker. I don't think it lasted too much longer after. And as for the next big thing, yep, 'twas ever so. Birdland anyone?
I've very much a soft spot for synth pop of all kinds, formative years and all that I suppose, but only recently realised why I could never take to La Roux, despite liking similar acts like her Ladyship and Little Boots, and that is because she can't sing! She can't hold a note to an almost unbelieveable level. In For The Kill is just shrieking. Awful awful stuff.
Last edited by stann; 16/09/2010 at 2:19 PM.
more bass
I don't mind her voice at all though I'd say it's been processed and adulterated to feck in the studio. Either that or I've never heard anyone better at doubletracking their vocals. It's the overcooked Yazoo tribute and the "I live in a parallel universe where it's forever 1982" thing I find a bit of a chin scratcher.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Yes - again its down to personal taste - one mans meat is anothers poison etc etc - but synth pop has always done my head in, so I've no love of the current, inferior wave its in thrall to.
I could never put my finger on why I don't like that sound - is it the lack of warmth in the music?? something overly clinical in its delivery?? - not sure. I just don't connect with it, that's for sure.
On the flip side - it was an absolute pleasure to listen to Arcade Fire's new offering "The Suburbs" - a band with plenty of influences themselves, I hasten to add.
Excellent on many levels IMO - great musicianship, great lyrics, passionate vocals and delivery of same and that intangible ability to draw the listener in.
Only 2 albums I've heard so far this year get full marks on the internationally recognised Wolfie Index - Gorillaz and Arcade Fire.
Quoting years at random since 1975
I know it was released last year, but Wild Beasts 'Two Dancers' is an absolute gem. Also The XX well deserved the Mercury Music Prize too which bodes well for the music scene. Totally agree that Arcade Fire's 'The Suburbs' will be a classic for years to come, I still can't stop listening to it, it has everything.
'Fascists dress in black and go round telling people what to do, where as priests.....'
I didn't "get" synth pop first time around, I'm fecked if I'm going to get it this time around. And that becomes the nub of the issue to do with age - it's all cycles and it'll never live up to the modern hype when don't have the memories of being young (and all that involves) to go with the music. Still doesn't mean it's any good though. Thank fook for the 90's Lunchbox on Phantom.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks