Serving Notice

[Salkin Red]

Andrew, I can totally understand your confusion (and I'm quite fine with you disliking the Shins, I don't see any unjust value judgements on your side) - it's just that I think you've chosen to label the music you don't like "today's indie rock" (as opposed to "real indie rock") and I think that kind of categorisation leads to all kind of trouble.
I mean, what makes the White Stripes "Alternative Rock" (despite their puk history on labels like Sympathy...) as opposed to the "Indie Rock" of The Wrens despite their decidedly "Alernative Rock" past?

I totally see your point about the "punk" spirit, though, and I guess I agree it is absent in all to many bands. I don't quite think that "too few loud guitars" really is the problem there - some of the greatest bands that made it in the wake of punk (to me, at least) are bands liek the Pet Shop Boys and they're at their best when they have just about no guitars at all... but that's another futile discussion, right there.

so now I'll go and listen to some early Meat Puppets, just because the point that freak folk (whatever that is...) has roots in punk reminded me of them.

[Wally]

really, what my whole beef with indie rock as it currently exists comes down to is the following: indie rock bands do not have enough loud distorted guitars in them. many of them these days are either undistorted or completely acoustic. mannered pop music is not my cup of tea, and if indie rock had not gone in that direction, i would doubtless like it a lot more--i.e. if bands still rocked as hard as superchunk, yo la tengo, pavement, etc did. i don't think that genre had to get tired--i think it got tired because people stopped playing it with any fire behind their eyes.

Weird, loud distorted guitars are one of the things most likely to either bore me or put me off a record. And whilst I'm as bored as you are with a few of the bands you mentioned, the notion that the Wrens or the National don't play with "fire behind their eyes" is, to me at least, daft. Although, they are the bands you've mentioned that I like, so either I'm projecting that because I like their music, or they do and therefore I'm more susceptible to their music. I'm also kinda of seeing you set up a loud and true vs quiet and mannered thingy here, which I think is quite false. You're a fan of things that are loud and distorted, which is cool, but to suggest that people who aren't trying to shred ear drums can't be playing with all the passion they've got. Well I think it's a little obnoxious.

As for the whole lifestyle thing, please. If someones devoted to anykind of music, being it grindcore or flute music, it's likely to be affected or have some affect on the style in which that person lives. Just because a certain type of music, in this case indie-rock (using the Yank definition) has become the party/shopping centre/teevee theme music for a period of time doesn't mean that a) the people who made it aren't putting their all into and b) that there aren't people who are listening to it with as much attention and attachment as you're listening to you're distortion. Dunno if any of that's relevent or makes sense.

[Doctor Bob]

i also can't really discuss the wrens one way or another because i had no idea they existed until "meadowlands" had been out for a year or so. i've never really understood the context i'm supposed to apply to the wrens.

You make it sound like the lack of context is a handicap, whereas I'd argue that the lack of context allows for a more objective appraisal of music, any music.  So it doesn't fit into your boxes?  So what?  You're not 'supposed' to 'apply' any context to The Wrens or anyone else.

The staff at Aquarius in SF play a game in which, if one staff member asks 'What's this?', the other responds with 'Why?  Do you like it?'- the whole point of the game being to listen without prejudice.

[edison]

really, what my whole beef with indie rock as it currently exists comes down to is the following: indie rock bands do not have enough loud distorted guitars in them. many of them these days are either undistorted or completely acoustic. mannered pop music is not my cup of tea, and if indie rock had not gone in that direction, i would doubtless like it a lot more--i.e. if bands still rocked as hard as superchunk, yo la tengo, pavement, etc did. i don't think that genre had to get tired--i think it got tired because people stopped playing it with any fire behind their eyes.

Weird, loud distorted guitars are one of the things most likely to either bore me or put me off a record. And whilst I'm as bored as you are with a few of the bands you mentioned, the notion that the Wrens or the National don't play with "fire behind their eyes" is, to me at least, daft. Although, they are the bands you've mentioned that I like, so either I'm projecting that because I like their music, or they do and therefore I'm more susceptible to their music. I'm also kinda of seeing you set up a loud and true vs quiet and mannered thingy here, which I think is quite false. You're a fan of things that are loud and distorted, which is cool, but to suggest that people who aren't trying to shred ear drums can't be playing with all the passion they've got. Well I think it's a little obnoxious.

As for the whole lifestyle thing, please. If someones devoted to anykind of music, being it grindcore or flute music, it's likely to be affected or have some affect on the style in which that person lives. Just because a certain type of music, in this case indie-rock (using the Yank definition) has become the party/shopping centre/teevee theme music for a period of time doesn't mean that a) the people who made it aren't putting their all into and b) that there aren't people who are listening to it with as much attention and attachment as you're listening to you're distortion. Dunno if any of that's relevent or makes sense.

Wally (and the Doctor) FTW - always nice when someone comes and types all that you've been meaning to say in a thread but were too lazy to

[Doctor Bob]

I was in the same position, but my exasperation finally got the better of my laziness.

[edison]

I do feel compelled to mention that I listened to the National in honor of this thread last night, though. I had a very nice middle-class evening!

[alistarr*]

love the george michael ref, DB.

[Doctor Bob]

 

[Almanzo]

I guess I'll keep talking and burping up cum and pussy juice everywhere since people are going to ignore me anyway on this board since I've not rushed this fraternity properly.

For me, the punk "drive" and so on extends to all factors of a band's existence from the way they make their records to the way they operate financially to the way they tour and everything. It permeates everything, and in the days of Old Indie Rock that punk mentality truly did permeate the existence and operations of even the sweetest and prettiest bands like Heavenly.

I mean, when you see something like this



can you react in any other way than to just assume that the band had nothing to do with it and no preference, and the duty of shaping this record's aesthetic was just handed off to some drudge in the graphic design department to "pretty it up?" I mean, look at that uncaring, joke-o threadless tee photoshop bullshit! It has nothing to do with the band in any way, springs from absolutely no care or aesthetic concern of the band for making album art that furthers the overall effect and approach of their music. "Just get Rico to gloss it up and run some filters! Make it look good for the Borders endcap, you faggots! Mush!"

I mean, GOD, compare it to something like this



Has there ever been a more perfect, caring marriage of album art and musical content? Is there no greater contrast between two different mentalities at work than those two album covers?

It's not just the art, it's the entire approach, the gestalt. Shins, National, Interpol, etc. are just a completely different feel in all respects - selling ringtones, accepting credit cards at the merch table, perfectly categorizing their merch for maximum marketing on the road, playing ticketmaster venues, handing off the album art and design to someone with no connection to the creation it will contain, recording with an engineer with no connection to the band, music, label, or scene, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

It's not better or worse, just not the same thing as Classical Old Indie Rock '85-'96.

[Andrew_TSKS]

I'm also kinda of seeing you set up a loud and true vs quiet and mannered thingy here, which I think is quite false. You're a fan of things that are loud and distorted, which is cool, but to suggest that people who aren't trying to shred ear drums can't be playing with all the passion they've got. Well I think it's a little obnoxious.

yeah, i figured someone would say something like that. put it this way, i don't hear the passion in the stuff i'm talking about. and i DO hear the passion in some acoustic music--for example, i hear a lot of passion just in the way joanna newsom sings, and she's playing a harp with orchestral backing! i just don't hear it in the decemberists (at least not in their more recent stuff). and of course, someone could argue that my not hearing it doesn't make it not there, but honestly, if i don't hear it, i don't care if it's there. it's not something i want to listen to.

You make it sound like the lack of context is a handicap, whereas I'd argue that the lack of context allows for a more objective appraisal of music, any  music.  So it doesn't fit into your boxes?  So what?  You're not 'supposed' to 'apply' any context to The Wrens or anyone else.

well, without context the wrens have always seemed overrated to me, and i feel sometimes like people make statements along the lines of "you need more context to understand them properly" to me, and then i feel like maybe the reason i don't get the excitement is because i'm not listening right, or something. fact is, i agree with you, and i think that if the wrens only sound half-decent and not amazingly great to me, then fine, that's all that needs to be said. but i've said it and had so many people try to convince me by pointing out that i don't know other stuff about them that i'm supposed to know, and the comment that inspired the comment that you responded to was one of those kinds of comments. and get this--i was VERY tempted to say something like "what does it matter?", and argue along the lines that you did, in response to it, but i decided not to open that particular can of worms. which i guess gave you the idea that i didn't agree with the concept you're arguing in favor of. and i do, i so do.

finally, almanzo--i don't know why you think you're being ignored, but i for one am not ignoring you. usually i disagree vehemently with you, but this time we agree, and i've said so multiple times already. i think you're making some good points. so maybe some people are ignoring you, though i don't really see any convincing evidence of such, but i for one am not.

[Almanzo]

Sorry, I'm just still really bitter over that Fred Frith thread.

[edison]

Sorry, I'm just still really bitter over that Fred Frith thread.

Hmm, seriously? I just forgot to reply and will do so soon. Truth be told, I am still quite bitter over you not letting me know how you liked the Kurt Wagner album I uploaded for you! Consider my non-reply as passive-agressive payback, then.

[Almanzo]

Hahahaha, sorry! That "Kurt" was outstanding...basically totally what I expected, therefore great.

[Salkin Red]

I mean, when you see something like this



can you react in any other way than to just assume that the band had nothing to do with it and no preference, and the duty of shaping this record's aesthetic was just handed off to some drudge in the graphic design department to "pretty it up?" I mean, look at that uncaring, joke-o threadless tee photoshop bullshit! It has nothing to do with the band in any way, springs from absolutely no care or aesthetic concern of the band for making album art that furthers the overall effect and approach of their music. "Just get Rico to gloss it up and run some filters! Make it look good for the Borders endcap, you faggots! Mush!"

It's not better or worse, just not the same thing as Classical Old Indie Rock '85-'96.

I sure spend more time listening to Pere Ubu (or Two Pale Boys, to be completely honest) than listening to the Shins but I don't think this example quite works since the way that Shins cover folds up to reveal all those cut outs in a children's book way is a great way to deal with the flaws of jewelcase artwork and also, at least to me, feels like it's in the same tradition of cover-design as a lot of XTC records and that makes a whole lot of sense, musically / artistically.

[Salkin Red]

Maybe I feel overly defensive, though, since The National (and up til their last record: Interpol) recorded their records with a guy who also worked on records by the bands I'm in and he worked with them forever, and in case of The National, for not all too much money at all because they all cared more about the music than the ticking studio clock.Maybe you are right about the other stuff, and I'm just too involved to be objective about any of this.

[Almanzo]

Maybe I feel overly defensive, though, since The National (and up til their last record: Interpol) recorded their records with a guy who also worked on records by the bands I'm in and he worked with them forever, and in case of The National, for not all too much money at all because they all cared more about the music than the ticking studio clock.Maybe you are right about the other stuff, and I'm just too involved to be objective about any of this.

Just don't start saying, "What? Why are people talking about my friends?" like CharmingTedious and I won't have to atomic piledriver you.

[Almanzo]

Related:  http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=54009

[Salkin Red]

No, no need to pull out the atomic piledriver. all i'm saying is that just because people make music you don't like (listened to by people you don't like) doesn't mean they do it for the worng reasons.
and thanks for the link - that's some pretty good posts over there!

[edison]

I realize this isn't really the whole point of the whole discussion, but I've never seen a band accept credit cards at the merch table. Weird.

[Salkin Red]

Must be an american thing 

[lastclearchance]

I realize this isn't really the whole point of the whole discussion, but I've never seen a band accept credit cards at the merch table. Weird.

I haven't either but I'd have to imagine that the availability of such a thing would be determined by the venue and not by the band. Am I wrong?

[theothermike]

NO. IT IS DETERMINED BY HOW PUNK ROCK YOU ARE.

[alex]

I realize this isn't really the whole point of the whole discussion, but I've never seen a band accept credit cards at the merch table. Weird.

I haven't either but I'd have to imagine that the availability of such a thing would be determined by the venue and not by the band. Am I wrong?

There was a thread a little while ago in which Grace was wondering about using CDBaby to distribute her band's upcoming recording, and she mentioned there that CDBaby offers a portable credit card device for bands, so basically, you're wrong.

Incidentally, a few people in that thread thought it was a neat idea. I still find it absurd, but there you are.

[Doctor Bob]

Meant to say this the other day:

I mean, when you see something like this

http://i32.tinypic.com/n6rvdc.jpg

can you react in any other way than to just assume that the band had nothing to do with it and no preference, and the duty of shaping this record's aesthetic was just handed off to some drudge in the graphic design department to "pretty it up?" I mean, look at that uncaring, joke-o threadless tee photoshop bullshit! It has nothing to do with the band in any way, springs from absolutely no care or aesthetic concern of the band for making album art that furthers the overall effect and approach of their music. "Just get Rico to gloss it up and run some filters! Make it look good for the Borders endcap, you faggots! Mush!"

≠

It's not better or worse

[jebreject]

hehe