Nice article in Irish Indo on the bland current music scene

JC 2K3

http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/4045/blandbq1.jpg

I'm glad to see an article in the mainstream press that actually criticises today's music scene rather than simply giving every new album to come out 4/5 star reviews and praise.

iFight

I wouldn't be 'hard pressed' to tell the difference between The Kooks and say Muse. They don't even sound remotely alike. And no way are Snow Patrol scruffy!!!!

Lainabaina

I'm sort of in two minds on this one. The picture of Orson accompanying the article makes me want to agree with the writer but his references are a bit harsh, I think. What he's classing as alternative music is actually fairly mainstream, it's what we're hearing on the radio over and over all day--Paolo Nutini's been on TOTP and sounds a bit like James Blunt and the Feeling and ray Lamontagne (a small bit) but that's not really the alternative scene, let alone Keane and Coldplay, who play big venues worldwide.

Slutmonkey57b

There's no such thing as "alternative", not for any length of time anyway. Any alternative movement is only a reaction to a given status quo anyway.

iFight

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

There's no such thing as "alternative", not for any length of time anyway. Any alternative movement is only a reaction to a given status quo anyway.

Yea, so there is alternative music(just it's defintion/style will change), at the moment it's Indie.

JC 2K3

Lainabaina wrote:

I'm sort of in two minds on this one. The picture of Orson accompanying the article makes me want to agree with the writer but his references are a bit harsh, I think. What he's classing as alternative music is actually fairly mainstream, it's what we're hearing on the radio over and over all day

His point was that that type of music is what gets classed as "alternative", yet there's nothing alternative about it.

sceptre

JC 2K3 wrote:

His point was that that type of music is what gets classed as "alternative", yet there's nothing alternative about it.

At this point it's just a music classification with a name that meant something significant once. Mind you, I still don't see anything odd about ID3tagging a number of Miles Davis albums as "Cool" when transcribing them to mp3. Then again, I'm reasonably picky about my post-grunge/big breaks/bop/euro-pop/contemporary r&b tags. There was once a time when "Indie" didn't really mean something different when referring to either the charts and or sound as well.

It's not "alternative" alternative? Fine, when whatever it is becomes a movement it'll be called something else. Probably by the music journos.

OctavarIan

That's a good article. Apart from throwing Muse in there, he's dead on with the other bands. They all follow the same template, but it's good to see that people are finally starting to realise just how **** the mainstream music industry has become. While listening to Christina Aquilera's latest song on the radio in work the other day, I was amazed at how every section sounded as if it had been done a thousand times before.

I'd also like to mention that travesty of a woman Paris Hilton. As if her 'music' wasn't bad enough already, she adds fuel to the fire by publicly stating that upon listening to it she thought that it was so good it made her cry. There's the problem. People who have no idea what good music is are the ones topping the charts. The average punter thinking that high sales = good music, they're sucked into contributing to the problem.

Giruilla

I dont really see how Editors, Kasabian, Muse are interchangable. The other bands he mentioned are just Pop Rock and definitely shouldnt be classed as alternative.

ChuckProphet

i'd have to agrree with that article...everything he mentions is bland sh*te. it's been a poor year for music imo. i think the beta band need to reform

Garret

if you're willing to look for it, there are plenty of excellent bands/artists out there nowadays.

OctavarIan

Garret wrote:

if you're willing to look for it, there are plenty of excellent bands/artists out there nowadays.

Totally. Here's my collection.

Angra, ARK, Aryeon, Devin Townsend, Dragonforce, Dream Theater, Explosions in the Sky, Iced Earth, Iggy Pop, Joe Satriani, Kamelot, Kansas, Led Zeppelin, Liquid Tension Experiment, Marillion, Megadeth, Meshuggah, Mr. Bungle, Muse, Opeth, OSI, Pearl Jam, Porcupine Tree, Rhapsody, Rick Wakeman, Rush, Sonata Arctica, Steve Vai, Strapping Young Lad, Stratovarius, Symphony X, The Mars Volta, Thin Lizzy, Time Requiem, Tool

And that's nothing compared to some people. But the average listener nowadays just confines their tastes to what's in the charts. It's a shame.

PiE

The charts are crammed with bland music?! Stop the presses!

He needs to stop listening to the free CD's that are sent to him in the post, get off his hole and go find some stuff worth writing about.

John

PiE wrote:

The charts are crammed with bland music?! Stop the presses!

He needs to stop listening to the free CD's that are sent to him in the post, get off his hole and go find some stuff worth writing about.

Exactly. While I agree that the charts are generally a bunch of rehashed rubbish I don't feel there's any point complaining because the charts are always like that. In this day and age with the internet allowing you to listen and buy practically any album by any artist with very little hassle, it's just laziness to say that all modern music is bland and boring. There's a world of music out there with incredible albums being released all the time by bands you never hear of because they're not on EMI or Warner or whatever. It's the same old story, the majority of people think that whoever's on the cover of Q or the NME are all there is out there when they are only the tip of a very crap iceberg in a sea of wonder.

Attractive Nun

I've only recently started making an actual effort to find more obscure and challenging bands, and I've been amazed by the sheer volume of great music being made. It's sheer laziness to assess the likes of the Kooks and Orson, and simply conclude that the entire scene is bland because they're the most popular. I'd agree with most of what the writer says about those bands (although I would add that such guitar-driven music being in the charts is, in my opinion, a significant improvement on times gone by), but it is still a very flawed piece. Anyone displaying the level of musical knowledge that that journalist does has little right to make such sweeping generalisations about music.

JC 2K3

Attractive Nun wrote:

I've only recently started making an actual effort to find more obscure and challenging bands, and I've been amazed by the sheer volume of great music being made. It's sheer laziness to assess the likes of the Kooks and Orson, and simply conclude that the entire scene is bland because they're the most popular. I'd agree with most of what the writer says about those bands (although I would add that such guitar-driven music being in the charts is, in my opinion, a significant improvement on times gone by), but it is still a very flawed piece. Anyone displaying the level of musical knowledge that that journalist does has little right to make such sweeping generalisations about music.

He clearly just meant mainstream alternative music though, ie. stuff that is very popular, rather than the whole music scene as a whole.

Smurfpiss

Don't these articles usually get rolled out when they've nothing to talk about?
Jim Carroll has admitted to doing something similar..
isn't he a hard man preferring britney spears?

:rolleyes:

egon spengler

definately agree with some of the sentiments, bands like the editors, maximo park, the rakes, I cant tell the difference between them, they fit his descriptions quite well. Its sad to see that bands like these arent actually doing anything new whatsoever, theyre just pilfering from a sound that was 20 years ago and being championed for it. Its like rock music has exhausted itself. I dont know which is worse, this current homage to the 80s or the pop music/dance fixated scene of 7 years ago. Theyre equally vacant. I suppose though anything is better than a return to 1999 musical tastes. What I find hard to accept is that it has to be so homogenous, why one type of music is privileged over others. If what Ive read is through then the mid nineties was more or less Britpop to the exclusion of everything else in terms of rock with a few exceptions like Radiohead (wasnt paying attention to what was going around at the time, being into acid jazz in a big way). It feels like the same scenario now. Hes right about them making telecasters sound like instruments of pain with the uber trebly crisp semi(or poorly distorted, depending what view you take on it) tone they use.

Attractive Nun

JC 2K3 wrote:

He clearly just meant mainstream alternative music though, ie. stuff that is very popular, rather than the whole music scene as a whole.

Did he? It sounded to me as if he was making some pretty general observations about contemporary music. Alright, he only mentioned certain bands, but the overall impression I got from the piece was that he was bored with rock music in general, threatening even to turn to Christina Aguilera or Shakira. Popular music is always bland and homogenous like that - or at least it has been as long as I can remember. It's hardly news to point that out. Instead of simply complaining about what's popular, he should be promoting what isn't.

SBob

It just so happens that previously alternative rock music has pushed its way to the mainstream/charts in the last couple of years, its a reaction to how utterly devoid of merit pop was getting. If you look at number ones from lets say the early 90's there was lots of really great pop sings that still merit a listen now, if you look at the no. 1's from the early naughties its complete crap.

Also, rock music went from deep and (to some) 'depressing' in the 90's to upbeat and 80's throwback in the last few years so its more suitable to the charts. last year bands like bloc party paved the way- genuinely good, upbeat, progressive rock. but this year razorlight type bands are heading the 'rock' scene, but in reality they're just pop disguised as rock IMO.

As you guys have said it takes effort, as it always has done, to find the decent music, for example the so called freak folk scene in america, from devendra banhart to espers to antony etc, also guys like sufjan stevens.
there's a massive amount of very original, very now, very good music around, there will always be chart music and there will always be underground music, genres are fickle definitions really, if you were to judge what is 'rock' and what is 'pop' by originality, motivation and musical ability someone like jens lekman would be far more rock then lets say the kooks, though in reality the dominant definition of rock would suggest otherwise

DadaKopf

Six simple words: Music for people who hate music.

crybaby

most of the MTV2 stuff is very similar at the moment while the stuff in the pop charts has far more creativity and individuality about it, these things all go through cycles though and theres blandness and creativity throughout all genres of music his article is far too broad really to make much sense. most of the bands he was referring to were terrible choices aswell

now an article about the blandness in the irish music scene would have really made alot more sense

Limerick Dude

One of the worst of these so called 'indie' bands has to be hard fi, listening to them makes me ponder how a band can actually be THAT bad.

BleakestH

A lot of this so-called 'indie' music that's about the palce today sounds like a computer-generated Smiths sans the emotion or decent lyrics. Mainstream rock is laughable these days. Where's the invention? The danger? The balls? The emotion? The distortion? It's a disgrace

SBob

crybaby wrote:

now an article about the blandness in the irish music scene would have really made alot more sense

Yes!!!! How sick am i of hearing damien rice crusty types with pseudo-deep lyrics and painfully quiet slow mopey songs.

They should give Bonnie prince a listen to see how its done.

Ruskie4Rent

You know you're old when you're complaining about "music these days". You won't enjoy music if you keep moaning that you've seen it all before.
People make bands, come up with catchy songs and get recognised for it. It's been happening for ages. And it's my opinion that the charts are more varied nowadays than they have been in a long time.

John

My advice is don't pay attention to the charts at all.

OctavarIan

John wrote:

My advice is don't pay attention to the charts at all.

This be sound advice.

BleakestH

John wrote:

My advice is don't pay attention to the charts at all.

Good advice there. I'd go even further in saying that if you want to hear good music, ignore the mainstream media and go looking for it yourself.

DadaKopf

John wrote:

My advice is don't pay attention to the charts at all.

Yup, I don't. I imagine if anything really good happened in the charts, I wouldn't have to do anything to find it. But there are two kinds of music listeners: passive ones who let it come to them, and active, people who go out and find exciting new music.

Most music - no, all music that gets into the charts has to be, by definition today, a bland, popularised version of something dangerous.

Why all the crappy retro music? This is not the reinvention of pop music, that happened back in the 1980s. Today, it's a load of boring people who grew up on a diet of classic rock (because it was oh so ironic) listening to new music that already sounds like the old songs they already know. No risk, no threat of cognitive dissonance. I remember a rash of American country/The Band/Creedence Clearwater Revival/Tom Waits rip off bands a while back for discerning gentlemen who listen to classic rock. What about Smog, Cat Power, Silver Jews, Giant Sand? Nuffink wrong with listening to old music. Just... don't ape it!

Typical scene in pub or club as the week's latest rock-pop anthem blares through the speakers: "MUSIC!!! I love music!!!"

So basically, pop music = people who aren't interested in, or even like music.

honru

Yeah, I used to be reactive to chart music but nowadays I just accept it. I'm not even on top on the "flavours of the month" anymore.

Sinfonia

the Telecaster is a 21st century invention?????:rolleyes:

e.doobie

yea i mean, the fact that there getting mentioned on here is adding to their 'success' and proves that all publicity is good publicity.

the whole brit pop scene is just an easy ticket to fame for all those people who consider them selves 'rockers' and claim they have a 'message that can only be told through music''(please) and like thousands others... play instruments.
and unfortunatly, like in politics, the wrong people have the power, therefore this crap, that sadly sells,is what leechy record lables are looking for because they'l make them money...so theyre labeled 'indie rock or 'alt rock', then the band get powdered up and shoot there first vid.. and bam... yet another crappy brit pop wanabe band... that goes nowhere after their first album and suck the life out of our music scene.. well its not my scene.. theere are plenty of good bands out there who dont even take to the mainstream out of pure choice and quite happily sit in the backround playing small gigs to their true fans... and doing great things..

NOTE; i do NOT consider muse or kasabian a part of that seedy , whatever it is.

grumpytrousers

DadaKopf wrote:

So basically, pop music = people who aren't interested in, or even like music.

Utter B*llocks...could you make an even MORE sweeping generalisation.

there is nothing wrong with decent pop music. There never has. Nor will there ever be. I'm not picking you per se, DadaKopf, but the reek of musical snobbery here is really getting my goat.

Sure there's a load of turgid 'heard-it-all-before' crud troubling the Top 40. It has always been so, but that doesnt' mean that it follows that once a song is 'popular' it's crap, cos it's not. I mean, i'll happily - hand on heart- say that as a card carrying member of the 'if there's no guitar, i'm not listening' fraternity (with one or two exceptions, granted!) I remember hearing the Sugababes 'Freak like me' song and saying 'jesus that's good' and buying it.

It was when my 42 year old flatmate (into The Fall, Warren Zevon, Joy Division, Elvis Costello and pre-Warners REM) told me that HE'D nipped out from work to pick it up in the shops that THIS was what 'popular' music really is.

something that people here need to grasp is that just becuase something is popular, it's not axiomatic that it's crap. Nor, for that matter is it axiomatic that it's good; but I think we've been and done that already...

Songs and artists are either good or bad depending on their merits, not on the marketing, not on the name of the genre and certainly not on the basis of how many units they've shifted....but ultimately of course, it's all a subjective decision anyway.

DadaKopf

You're misunderstanding me.

I am generalising. But what I said boils down to whether people are passive or active listeners, and about how far they go to find something exciting.

I didn't say pop music is rubbish, or that music is instantly crap as soon as it becomes popular. What I did say is that when pop music is good - and I'd agree on some Sugababes songs - it's good, and chances are I'll pick up on that with no effort. And I'm cool with that.

But there is also amazing stuff out there that will never reach the charts, and many musicians don't want to be chart toppers anyway. But finding that music really does require quite a lot of interest and effort on part of the individual. This is not, by your definition, pop music. But this is also not to say that people who like pop music don't love music. And there's plenty of boring, turgid music here, too.

There's boring, turgid, woeful music everywhere. But then, this is also very subjective.

But I do think, by any large, people who only respond to what's in the charts - taking that as a mark of artistic prowess - eat the same bland dinner most days of their lives.

I think it's often the case that 'experimental' bands in the charts - Radiohead for example - are often 2-dimensional emulations of more 'out there' stuff, which, to me, is more adventurous, more interesting, more exciting.

But then, it's up to the individual to decide what recipe they want: do you like music because you want a soundtrack to remind you of good times with your buddies, or do you want to go mental, or do you like head music, do you like certain kinds of music just because they're unusual, do you like lyrics, whatever.

grumpytrousers

fair 'nuff...like i said, i wasn't having a pop at you...i just hate the whiff of snobbery one finds 'round these parts...

on the other hand, hanging around the 'indie/alternative' forum shouldn't really lead me to expect much cheerleading for the latest offering from westloife...

*edit* actually, that magazine The Word is quite good for featuring new artists...i mean, the mag would seem to be aimed at the collective dad-rock audience, but the music featured on the Cover cd tends to be of the cutting edge variety...

DadaKopf

Actually, are militantly pro-pop people just as snobbish - sort of invert snobbery because they believe that what's in the charts means that it's 'good music', as opposed to all the 'crap' out there.

grumpytrousers

Some are, surely. I think it might be an age thing. You reach a point where you stop caring about liking 'cool' music anymore and you just like a song 'cos you like a song and sod the begrudgers.

In other words, as a 32 year old who counts Exile On Main St, Never Mind the boll0cks and Excitable Boy by Warren Zevon as three of his most played albums, I have no hesitation in saying that I thought, for example, 'Love Machine' by Girls Aloud was one of the finest pop tunes I'd heard in an age when it came out. It's up there, IMHO, with The Happening by The Supremes as proper 3 minute pop music that will stand the test of time.

I don't say that to provoke a reaction, but if I do, I don't care!!!

Certainly there are inverse snobs out there, or as I call them the 'pretentiously unpretentious'...they're as bad as regular snobs...if not worse!

JC 2K3

There's a difference between people who appreciate music and people who like songs. And of course there's plenty of room on the scale for people in between, although people tend to be one extreme or the other.

Know what I mean?

DadaKopf

Don't people usually appreciate music by liking songs?

JC 2K3

Not necessarily, it's a bit of a hard concept to explain. But a person liking music would know more about different stlyes, open to new sounds and appreciate the music as a whole, perhaps all the songs in the context of an album as opposed to someone who simply gets their kicks from catchy 3 minute songs.