What's your beef?
― Nick, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Nicole, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Tim, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I think it's getting more competent but not neccessarily better. Time was when a really dreadful piece by Cox or whoever would provoke you a bit, at least mke you articulate why it was bad. Whereas Petridis clearly is no fool but he doesnt seem to have anything "interesting" even if wrong to say.
― Tom, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― the pinefox, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― David Gunnip, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― mark s, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Gunnip: I glanced through the Reynolds, it looked pretty good, admirable stuff. From my POV, like a cross between Hopkins (the material) and Troussé (the emphasis on pop being invigorated by non- pop things).
Well, yeah, that's his background. He's honest about it. It's also the background of the majority of people on ILM. But what he was trying to do in that ' risible' article was explain his own musical journey and in the process give his thoughts on the state of music today. He's come to the Guardian via Mixmag, knows about R&B producers, cares about chart pop, and Tom - he even lists Basement Jaxx among his favourite current acts. Look, he even makes cheap dig at Travis, what more could you want?
OK, so of course it's not all about having a similar set of tastes to one's own (although it tend to help). But hey, I think he is a competent writer who doesn't rest on easy assumptions, and that's good enough for me. OK, so he's not a life-changing, maverick rock journalist like Lester Bangs or Tom Ewing, but hey, who is?
There's probably something in what Mark S says about music journalism never catching fire in the pages of a traditionally organised broadsheet. But until the media revolution comes, I'm not going to worry about it.
My point was that people still seem to think the Guardian's music agenda is in the Tom Cox era, when it clearly isn't. I think some people just like straw men.
As for "it's a bit like '73", the first person I can remember saying that was Jerry Dammers - in 1983. I've been hearing it so regularly since that I'm sick of it.
I'm not at all sure that I buy 10 or more CDs a year - *certainly* not new releases. And I Love Music.
BUT I have just dug out the Spears review and it is total garbage. A ton of clichés and the usual unquestioning subservience to rubbishy contemporary pop, same as you get all over the place. He says, for goodness' sake, that the last 45 is 'startling', and an example of the 'superb' contributions of some producer characters. Pssssshhh.
I think the pinefox proves my point too. He's useful for that.
The other piece you guys are on about, I haven't seen. But then, I don't believe in The State Of Contemporary Music anyway, as far as I can remember.
― Sterling Clover, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
eg their review strategy is identical, their subjective response just happens to be different
As for whoever mentioned the Irish Times, they have alot of shit writers and maybe one or two good ones.
― Ronan, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Mark S: my goodness - why so hostile?
Nick: have now read the article. It's very standard stuff. And no-one should get away with saying 'we all loved Oasis', 'we all sang along with Wonderwall', etc. That kind of untrue generalization only ever alienates and annoys.
There you go, I've said something.
no-one should get away with saying 'we all loved Oasis', 'we all sang along with Wonderwall', etc. That kind of untrue generalization only ever alienates and annoys.
I agree with this totally, and think it is very well put. I don't think that Petridis fellow is particularly bad, but I found his state of the nation piece to be so much boring filler. Most of the anti -responses to said piece make some good points IMO. Personally, I think such a piece is about as worthwhile as those "100 best singers/guitarists/albums/whatever - official!" screeds they print in Mojo from time to time, in that all it does is re-inforce a conformist view. Also, I read that John Peel piece in today's guardian, and even though "Teenage Kicks" is indeed great, and one of my favourite rekords, I just wish he'd GIVE IT A REST.
― Norman Phay, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Petridis' "clued up agenda" = liking the same 'fashionable' discs every other newspaper music journo plugs. Has anyone ever heard abt a rec FIRST in the Guardian? I think Andy Gill's reviews in the Indie are much better - nothing startling, just solid, competent writing backed up by a slightly broader range of musical reference/knowledge than Petridis and his chums can manage. They should get rid of that doofus John L Walters too.
― Andrew L, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― suzy, Friday, 2 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Doesn't necessarily like them. But does review them. And gives them due prominence. In the past, they'd be giving far too much coverage to Americana and Q magazine style bores at the expense of a lot of, well pop for a start. Now it seems have more of an idea about which records people are talking about and buying. Maybe in a style mag way, yes. But I agree with Suzy - you can't expect a broadsheet to be all about discovering new acts and following some agenda free from the fashions of the day. That's just not what they're about. Until mark s's Numan-backed revolution comes.
― Nick, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
i'm talking the injection of passion, betrayal, disappointment, yearning, inadvisable tattoos, STDs, potential blackmail, bandy legs etc.
― mark s, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
True. But ideally, said broadsheet might be able to say something interesting about the fashions of the day. It also might be able to convey to a mainstream audience why they should care about more obscure music. Reading through the stuff from Friday, I'd give it about 6 out of 10 in those terms. Bottom line: There's a hell of a lot of stuff out there, and nobody has to settle for competent.
Anyway, I nominate NY Times writer Kelefa Sannah as someone who's doing a great job of writing about both familiar and unfamiliar music for a (relatively) mainstream audience. He/she wrote this kick-ass thing about why Aaliyah was important (as a musician, not as an icon, which is how most media tried to spin it) after she died. And this weekend he/she has a long thing about Aphex Twin and Richie Hawtin (who might as well be aliens as far as the Times' regular readership is concerned) that both explains what it is that they do, exactly, to non-acolytes and has a pretty interesting take (trad musical instruments as organizing principles for electronic composition) for those who think Aphex Twin is an institutional figure who must be reacted against.
It's not passion, betrayal, disappointment. But it is great writing and original thinking.
― Ben Williams, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
What a thought!
I like the idea that there is this division between inadvisable tattoos and advisable ones.
― Andrew L, Saturday, 3 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Nick, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Nicole, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I like Alexis Petridis too, I don't think I would disagree with many of the faults pointed out above - but half way readable musical critisism is now so rare since the weeklys gave up that I can forgive some minor sins.
― Alexander Blair, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― RickyT, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― gareth, Monday, 12 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/dec/15/paulmccartney-thebeatles
OK, couldn't find / remember the usual guardian thread, so used this one.
Um, is this a cack handedly written article?
― Mark G, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 14:39 (fifteen years ago) link
Specifically, this bit:
While it's John Lennon who has retained the reputation for rabble-rousing, "I politicised the Beatles," McCartney insisted. And now he has passed the "megaphone" to a new generation of political artists, he said. People like Bono.Bono, meanwhile, was honoured in Paris this weekend, at the Peace Summit. "I am an over-awarded, over-rewarded rock star," Bono said after receiving the Man of Peace prize. "You are the people who do the real work."Somewhere in England, Paul McCartney is squeaking: "Me too!"
Bono, meanwhile, was honoured in Paris this weekend, at the Peace Summit. "I am an over-awarded, over-rewarded rock star," Bono said after receiving the Man of Peace prize. "You are the people who do the real work."
Somewhere in England, Paul McCartney is squeaking: "Me too!"
Swash Dogs and Diet Coke Heads: the 2008 rolling Guardian zing thread
though i guess we need a new name for it.
― visiting dignitary from an alien civilization (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, 16 December 2008 14:40 (fifteen years ago) link
soon
Sean Michaels is a worse music writer than his "AIDS-stricken Chippendale" name-a-like wrestler would make.
― Go Go Padgett Binoculars (The stickman from the hilarious 'xkcd' comics), Tuesday, 16 December 2008 14:40 (fifteen years ago) link
he's writer for the Montreal-based music blog Said the Gramophone. what have you ever done?
― visiting dignitary from an alien civilization (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, 16 December 2008 14:42 (fifteen years ago) link
I called it as cack-handedly written.
I don't want his job. Still, though.
― Mark G, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 14:44 (fifteen years ago) link
What have I done? I wrote a Jesus and Mary Chain article for Record Collector Magazine.
£120. So, yay to me.
― Mark G, Tuesday, 16 December 2008 14:46 (fifteen years ago) link
Couldn't find a sexism in music thread, didn't want to start a thread just for this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/sep/01/gender-stereotypes-indie-music
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:05 (thirteen years ago) link
Androgyny can even been seen in the common use of falsetto by male singers as a higher register is usually associated with femininity.
yeah... that just happened
― i am legernd (history mayne), Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:28 (thirteen years ago) link
Ha, when I saw the revive I knew it was going to be about this. Pointless article.
― seandalai, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 23:00 (thirteen years ago) link
What do people think of... Rosie Swash?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 1 September 2010 23:02 (thirteen years ago) link
"Are gender stereotypes still present in indie music? Ask the unidentified girl in this photo, which centers on her breasts and crops off her head!"
― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Wednesday, 1 September 2010 23:10 (thirteen years ago) link
it was passed on to me by someone
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 08:08 (thirteen years ago) link
Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it. Some people in life will grope you. Most won't. Get used to it.
― great British wasteman = u (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 2 September 2010 09:11 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm trying to wean myself off the 'c+p-ing the comment box morons' thing but... the first fucking response
― great British wasteman = u (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 2 September 2010 09:12 (thirteen years ago) link
you suggesting Guardian readers are morons?
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 09:12 (thirteen years ago) link
"Are gender stereotypes still present in indie music? Ask the unidentified girl in this photo, which centers on her breasts and crops off her head!"― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Thursday, September 2, 2010 12:10 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark
― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Thursday, September 2, 2010 12:10 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark
haw
― i am legernd (history mayne), Thursday, 2 September 2010 09:13 (thirteen years ago) link
Most of those who comment are. And I comment myself...
― margana (anagram), Thursday, 2 September 2010 09:45 (thirteen years ago) link
'The indie professor' is perhaps the least appealing nom de plume I can imagine.
― rhythm fixated member (chap), Thursday, 2 September 2010 12:24 (thirteen years ago) link
how very true
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 13:50 (thirteen years ago) link
people who comment are the worst. never reading comments on anything ever again.
― Efraqueen Juárez (jim in glasgow), Thursday, 2 September 2010 14:15 (thirteen years ago) link
we're doing it here though!
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 14:30 (thirteen years ago) link
but , yes, You are right. HYS is still the worst though.
lol @ using crowd surfing as the benchmark. i've not done it but i've had the fuckers go over me and quite frankly, i'm too busy trying not to be fallen on or kicked in the head to care where my hands go on their body as self defence. I lost the lense to my glasses after being kicked in the face by one of these cunts; the least I can do is punch the person who kicked it out in the cunt/nads.
― a hoy hoy, Thursday, 2 September 2010 14:52 (thirteen years ago) link
Crowd surfing is such a red herring here. It's almost like it was inserted into the article to derail any meaningful dismussion.
But I know better than to try to participate in threads like this... ooops.
::removes delurking device::
― cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Thursday, 2 September 2010 14:54 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah, I just couldn't get past the start. Women still mistreated, although not as bad as it used to be? Either way it's not going to be sorted by bad writing.
― a hoy hoy, Thursday, 2 September 2010 14:57 (thirteen years ago) link
The whole article on women = picture of boobs thing really pisses me off. No, I don't care if you're writing purportedly feminist things, you've just invalidated everything you have to say. Fuck you.
(Obviously I'm not always against pictures of boobs, just this lazy fucking trend. Seriously, FUCK YOU ALL.)
― emil.y, Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:15 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah, but the person who writes the article != the person who chooses the accompanying image.
And with that image, again, I wonder if it was deliberately chosen to counteract the message of the article. (Wouldn't put it past a subeditor with an axe to grind thinking "this article is poorly written but got published because it's right-on, so ha! I will subvert it with an inappropriate image!" because it's the kind of pedantic nastiness that subeditors excel at.)
― cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:18 (thirteen years ago) link
That is true. I guess I lump together author/subs/editors as one big 'this is the way this newspaper chooses to present its ethos' thing. The article is rather poorly written and confused by itself, anyway, but that wouldn't be enough to make me mad, more LOL Guardian music coverage.
― emil.y, Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:21 (thirteen years ago) link
in fairness images which represent the message "crowd surfing - srs business" are possibly not in abundance
― great British wasteman = u (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:39 (thirteen years ago) link
I have a major problem with the idea that crowdsurfing is common at indie gigs. Seeing as that is the type of gig I go to most, and I go to quite a lot, and, um, it maybe happens at 1 in 40 shows. And most of those shows are more punk rock than indie. So what is the author's definition of 'indie'?
― emil.y, Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:47 (thirteen years ago) link
I feel like it probably happens at, idk, most Babyshambles gigs or something like that, but I stay as far away from those as I suspect you do
― great British wasteman = u (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:51 (thirteen years ago) link
not getting why the pic is deemed inappropriate, the article is in part about why women are anti-crowd surfing and the photo depicts a woman who is anti-crowd surfing
― margana (anagram), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:53 (thirteen years ago) link
...a faceless woman in a photograph that focuses on her breasts. No, that's not problematic at all with regards to the depiction of women as objects or bodies rather than people.
― cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:54 (thirteen years ago) link
The whole article on women = picture of boobs thing really pisses me off. No, I don't care if you're writing purportedly feminist things, you've just invalidated everything you have to say. Fuck you.(Obviously I'm not always against pictures of boobs, just this lazy fucking trend. Seriously, FUCK YOU ALL.)― emil.y, Thursday, September 2, 2010 4:15 PM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban PermalinkYeah, but the person who writes the article != the person who chooses the accompanying image.And with that image, again, I wonder if it was deliberately chosen to counteract the message of the article. (Wouldn't put it past a subeditor with an axe to grind thinking "this article is poorly written but got published because it's right-on, so ha! I will subvert it with an inappropriate image!" because it's the kind of pedantic nastiness that subeditors excel at.)― cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Thursday, September 2, 2010 4:18 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban PermalinkThat is true. I guess I lump together author/subs/editors as one big 'this is the way this newspaper chooses to present its ethos' thing. The article is rather poorly written and confused by itself, anyway, but that wouldn't be enough to make me mad, more LOL Guardian music coverage.― emil.y, Thursday, September 2, 2010 4:21 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark
― emil.y, Thursday, September 2, 2010 4:15 PM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Thursday, September 2, 2010 4:18 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― emil.y, Thursday, September 2, 2010 4:21 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark
pic is actually "author's own"!!
― i am legernd (history mayne), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:56 (thirteen years ago) link
there are all sorts of layout reasons why the photo might have been cropped at that point. plus, the message is contained on her t-shirt, which covers her breasts. kinda hard to show the t-shirt without showing the (covered) breasts, I would have thought.
xp
― margana (anagram), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:57 (thirteen years ago) link
My eyes were drawn straight to the chips tbh. Goddamn it don't show me that when I'm hungry.
― Neggin' you crapative (NickB), Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:59 (thirteen years ago) link
anagram, then maybe they should have re-thought the entire design, if literally the only way they could show a woman is by fragmenting her personhood.
― emil.y, Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:10 (thirteen years ago) link
im not even a feminist and i think it's ridic
― i am legernd (history mayne), Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:11 (thirteen years ago) link
ugh I should have headed advice upthreadhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/7528753
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:20 (thirteen years ago) link
Ugh, that comment. Don't see the fuss over the picture myself - it's standard when showing a T-shirt image/slogan to focus/crop like that so your eye is drawn to the T-shirt rather than the face of the wearer, regardless of gender. "Fragmenting her personhood"? Really?
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:31 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.omgmod.org/wiki/images/e/eb/YA_RLY.jpg
― cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:36 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah, really. Obviously there are times when it's fairly unimportant, but juxtaposed with an article that is explicitly attempting to address problematic gender issues completely undermines any point you might be trying to make.
― emil.y, Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:41 (thirteen years ago) link
(Should have said 'fairly unimportant to me', rather than 'fairly unimportant'. I don't often get riled - I'm fairly inured to my gender being portrayed badly, but it's the self-contradiction, blatant idiocy and sheer laziness of imagery that really gets to me here.)
― emil.y, Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:43 (thirteen years ago) link
She's not faceless; only half of her face is missing.
― Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:46 (thirteen years ago) link
See, this is one of the biggest problems with imagery like that attached to articles like that - and why I think it's a derrailing tactic. Because we then get bogged down with people pointing fingers at the "feminists" telling them they really don't have a reason to be bothered by these things (while comments like *that* really do show that we have a bit of a point?) It then completely bypasses the point of anything good that might have been accomplished by opening up a debate about these things (becase we're, you know, "oversensitive" - or oversensitised?)
It's all a bit one step forward, two steps back.
― cymose corymb (Karen D. Tregaskin), Thursday, 2 September 2010 16:52 (thirteen years ago) link
I still don't see that this image derails or occludes the point of the article unintentionally let alone as a deliberate "tactic". But I don't want to be calling anybody oversensitive or deciding what other people should be irritated by so I'll sit this one out.
― Haunted Clocks For Sale (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, 2 September 2010 17:12 (thirteen years ago) link
Alex Trebek: crowd surfer, misogynist.
― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Thursday, 2 September 2010 17:37 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah, that jumped out at me, too. I wonder what the context was? It doesn't sound like his style at all.
― Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Thursday, 2 September 2010 17:40 (thirteen years ago) link
― Neggin' you crapative (NickB), Thursday, September 2, 2010 11:59 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
otm
― max, Thursday, 2 September 2010 17:42 (thirteen years ago) link
"What's Yr Take On Alex Trebek?"
― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Thursday, 2 September 2010 17:43 (thirteen years ago) link
"I'll take Genius/Misogynist for $1,000 please.""It's the Daily Double!""That's misogynist!"
― slow a cat sample down 800 percent (Matos W.K.), Thursday, 2 September 2010 20:08 (thirteen years ago) link
I think the problem with the article was that it attributed gender enlightenment on 'indie' as a whole. This maybe true for the bands (which were strangely quoted due to them having girls in them) but ignored the actual listeners of 'indie' or what is purported to be 'indie' in the modern age. With the mainstream aspects of such music and especially the kind of people who go to festivals that often end in 'groping' (didn't one of the American festivals end up in numerous rapes?) are the general public en masse. My point being that you can still love the xx and be a fucking idiot.
― owenf, Thursday, 2 September 2010 21:18 (thirteen years ago) link
not that that was particularly grammatically correct but whatevs. Rant
― owenf, Thursday, 2 September 2010 21:19 (thirteen years ago) link
Wasn't it the Latitude festival there was 2 rapes? I think B&S played that iirc
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 21:39 (thirteen years ago) link
think I was thinking of Woodstock 99. Had no idea that it happened at latitude, my mum went there last year!
― owenf, Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:03 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah it just goes to show it can happen anywhere. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-10676193
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:06 (thirteen years ago) link
true. I don't imagine mother going to festivals will quell rape statistics.
― owenf, Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:08 (thirteen years ago) link
Which is why it's very strange that the "indie professor" thinks indie is more enlightened than other genres.
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:12 (thirteen years ago) link
I'll bet there's less groping at Shostakovich recitals.
― owenf, Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:15 (thirteen years ago) link
This is from an earlier "indie professor" blog
This may be a dumb question, but what criteria are you using for "indie" here – musical/hairstyle, or artists who aren't signed to a major?SimianbaffinNot a dumb question, and one that lots of people asked in one form or another. I'll try and tackle the question that takes 57 pages to answer in my book in the shortest way possible. "What is indie" is the issue that is most contested, dissected, and passionately debated by journalists and fans alike. For me, indie is found in the arguments people have. For example, no one argues about ownership in hip-hop and nobody worries about who wrote the music to decide if you are "jazz" or not. For indie, there are five major arguments. I like to think about them as teams. First is "Team Independent Label/Distribution". For people who use this definition, it doesn't matter what you sound like or your practices. You just need the label (US) or distribution (UK) of the artist to be not owned by one of the four major international record corporations. The ideal is that independent labels interfere less, are more ethical, are "small" and reflect a local scene. However, no one seems to worry about the ownership of artists' publishing companies or booking agencies. This tells you independent ownership is more about perception of autonomy rather than actual autonomy. Second is "Team Attitude". For "Team Attitude" it is about the spirit of independence, the most punk criterion. This would include artists with creative control, DIY practices, egalitarian non-conformists who value individualism. Third is "Team Aesthetics/Genre". This is the one that creates the most exasperation for purists. Here, indie would be stylish four-piece beat combos with skinny guys and skinny girls in skinny jeans wearing their everyday clothes on stage, a twee, retro, or lo-fi sound, simple songs with intelligent, nostalgic, escapist, or depressing lyrics. This team allows audience members to be indie as well. Fourth is "Team Taste". These elitists claim to recognise the most authentic and quality music, it's just that the best music is the music that they like. It's a question of "artistic merit" and it is why Mr Tomfoolery "indie kids pretend to like rap music". They are the aesthetically elect. They are also the objects of collective ire.Finally, there is "Team Non-Mainstream" (whatever the mainstream is, I am not). The mainstream is seen as a bloated centralised authority run by corrupt bureaucrats more concerned with sales than artistic expression. Therefore, indie would be anything that is the opposite of what we perceive as mainstream: diminutive, intimate, local, personalised, modest, original, intelligent, raw, austere, and substantive. I'm not privileging any of these teams. People want you to choose a side. Yet, if you take these premises together, you'll find out that they have more in common than you might initially think.
Not a dumb question, and one that lots of people asked in one form or another. I'll try and tackle the question that takes 57 pages to answer in my book in the shortest way possible. "What is indie" is the issue that is most contested, dissected, and passionately debated by journalists and fans alike. For me, indie is found in the arguments people have. For example, no one argues about ownership in hip-hop and nobody worries about who wrote the music to decide if you are "jazz" or not. For indie, there are five major arguments. I like to think about them as teams. First is "Team Independent Label/Distribution". For people who use this definition, it doesn't matter what you sound like or your practices. You just need the label (US) or distribution (UK) of the artist to be not owned by one of the four major international record corporations. The ideal is that independent labels interfere less, are more ethical, are "small" and reflect a local scene. However, no one seems to worry about the ownership of artists' publishing companies or booking agencies. This tells you independent ownership is more about perception of autonomy rather than actual autonomy. Second is "Team Attitude". For "Team Attitude" it is about the spirit of independence, the most punk criterion. This would include artists with creative control, DIY practices, egalitarian non-conformists who value individualism. Third is "Team Aesthetics/Genre". This is the one that creates the most exasperation for purists. Here, indie would be stylish four-piece beat combos with skinny guys and skinny girls in skinny jeans wearing their everyday clothes on stage, a twee, retro, or lo-fi sound, simple songs with intelligent, nostalgic, escapist, or depressing lyrics. This team allows audience members to be indie as well. Fourth is "Team Taste". These elitists claim to recognise the most authentic and quality music, it's just that the best music is the music that they like. It's a question of "artistic merit" and it is why Mr Tomfoolery "indie kids pretend to like rap music". They are the aesthetically elect. They are also the objects of collective ire.
Finally, there is "Team Non-Mainstream" (whatever the mainstream is, I am not). The mainstream is seen as a bloated centralised authority run by corrupt bureaucrats more concerned with sales than artistic expression. Therefore, indie would be anything that is the opposite of what we perceive as mainstream: diminutive, intimate, local, personalised, modest, original, intelligent, raw, austere, and substantive. I'm not privileging any of these teams. People want you to choose a side. Yet, if you take these premises together, you'll find out that they have more in common than you might initially think.
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:21 (thirteen years ago) link
iirc...
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/09/340x_pastebig.jpg
― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:39 (thirteen years ago) link
(the answer was yes)
― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:40 (thirteen years ago) link
has anyone read her book that she mentioned?
However, even in 2006, when Pitchfork reviewed my book on the culture of indie music, the writer actually talked about my cleavage!
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 September 2010 23:30 (thirteen years ago) link
matos said it was the most intelligent book ever written on music
― worthy rappinghood (zvookster), Thursday, 2 September 2010 23:51 (thirteen years ago) link
but what did he think of the cleavage?
― like a musical album. made by a band. (fucking in the streets), Thursday, 2 September 2010 23:59 (thirteen years ago) link
he said it was one of the smartest in years, to be accurate
― worthy rappinghood (zvookster), Friday, 3 September 2010 00:02 (thirteen years ago) link
I read the book a little after my college years. It was one of my ethnomusicology professor's favorite book. For an anthropology book it was an accessible read. Which is a hard feat concerning the academic field. After reading it I got some sense of indie culture (I guess...) but it has opened my mind to listening to it more often. However, I don't remember seeing boobies.
― lilsoulbrother, Friday, 3 September 2010 06:37 (thirteen years ago) link
no one argues about ownership in hip-hop and nobody worries about who wrote the music to decide if you are "jazz" or not
Either I'm missing her point here or this is bullshit.
― owenf, Friday, 3 September 2010 10:04 (thirteen years ago) link
it's just bullshit
― having taken an actual journalism class (contenderizer), Friday, 3 September 2010 10:51 (thirteen years ago) link
okay, the whole thing is bullshit on lots of levels. first the breaking of things into "teams" is achingly foolish, and worse, it's simplistic and doesn't speak honestly to how most fans conceptualize the music. rather than there being some dedicated group of people who unthinkingly reduce the genre to any music that happens to exist on an independent label, and another opposing group countering that it's all about "indie attitude," these tend to be complementary and less reductive understandings. same goes for the hostility to some presumed mainstream, which exists primarily as a political/aesthetic justification for the former two. and most of us, i think, can see that indie aesthetics (as codified in the pop genre she smirkingly reduces to "stylish four-piece beat combos with skinny guys and skinny girls in skinny jeans...") arose out of that conceptual background, but eventually eventually began to separate themselves from it.
so much half-baked, snarky nonsense in that quote. "However, no one seems to worry about the ownership of artists' publishing companies or booking agencies. This tells you independent ownership is more about perception of autonomy rather than actual autonomy." bullshit. it only tells us that the writer is proud of her own perspicacity and has no idea how important book your own fucking life has been to the development of indie music.
― having taken an actual journalism class (contenderizer), Friday, 3 September 2010 11:11 (thirteen years ago) link
I get the impression that it's written for its audience even more than the rest of the paper's bloggy stuff - if you hold your nose and jump into the c*mment s*ction it's largely a load of yahoos writing "lol indie sux and is gay" over and over, and the skinny jeans chestnuts she drops in seem to be as much in pre-emptive defence as anything, not that that makes it any more exciting to wade through.
There's a kernel of truth in the "perception of autonomy rather than actual autonomy" thing, insofar as you have to be fairly deep in the DIY punk rabbithole to find ppl talking about blacklisting or otherwise disliking booking agents, but more or less everyone has an idea of a shitty label - it's more of a surface level part of a band's identity. But yeah your last sentence is otm
― great British wasteman = u (DJ Mencap), Friday, 3 September 2010 11:39 (thirteen years ago) link
i thought you was "great British wagemann" and lold
― having taken an actual journalism class (contenderizer), Friday, 3 September 2010 11:44 (thirteen years ago) link
scary thought
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Friday, 3 September 2010 14:24 (thirteen years ago) link
For example, no one argues about ownership in hip-hop
i lol'd
― bernard goony (The Reverend), Friday, 3 September 2010 16:14 (thirteen years ago) link
ha ha ha. I do like the book, though, esp. the way she breaks down the way a concert audience's positions from the stage make up specific zones.
― slow a cat sample down 800 percent (Matos W.K.), Friday, 3 September 2010 20:01 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/interactive/2011/jun/11/history-modern-music-timeline
I've already spotted one mistake in it, but I think that particular article was written by an ILX0r!
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:36 (twelve years ago) link
the r&b and hip-hop section seems a bit light on R&B
― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:57 (twelve years ago) link
the indie section sort of peters out about 1992 which seems accurate
― aka best bum of the o_O's (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 11:59 (twelve years ago) link
spiral scratch ep a stunning omission from indie
― Spikey, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:04 (twelve years ago) link
wow there are as many as four genres now?
― blueski, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:27 (twelve years ago) link
lol surprise I have several issues with the hardcore punk article (written by our own Stevie) as well...
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:31 (twelve years ago) link
(although that's just a matter of opinion, not a factual error like the other one)
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:35 (twelve years ago) link
this one? http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jun/14/ian-makaye-bad-brains-hardcore
don't have any issues w/ anything in the main text, guessing he didn't write the section headline
― Beth Gibbons & Foreskin Man (DJ Mencap), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:36 (twelve years ago) link
Ah, well if that's the case then that was what I was mainly objecting to, and how that colours the rest of the article.
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:39 (twelve years ago) link
Like if it was Ian MacKaye and Bad Brains popularise hardcore then fine (but I'm picking nits).
xpost Spiral Scratch is mentioned in Morley's piece about the Lesser Free Trade Hall gig.
― Trudi Styler, the Creator (ithappens), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:43 (twelve years ago) link
very much a potted history - ie what do our writers know about - than a definitive one. just another way for the site to get more visitors/to sell more papers through a not exactly essential supplement.
― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:45 (twelve years ago) link
Yep, a potted history. But what do people expect in a series of 24-page supplements?
In the interests of honesty, I ought to confess to those who don't know that I edited the indie one and the rock one.
― Trudi Styler, the Creator (ithappens), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:50 (twelve years ago) link
Pretty sure the ILM hip-hop poll is a more useful resource/archive for any possible purpose than the Guardian hip-hop timeline.
― i wanna be yr rhizome (seandalai), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:51 (twelve years ago) link
A+ interface though!
― i wanna be yr rhizome (seandalai), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 12:53 (twelve years ago) link
Just fyi then,
Recorded during the Falklands war in May, flexidiscs of How Does it Feel to Be the Mother of 1,000 Dead? were smuggled, guerrilla-style, into random albums by distributors Rough Trade. It sailed out under its own steam in November, replacing Robert Wyatt's Falklands-themed Shipbuilding at the top of the independent chart.
The flexi that was smuggled into random albums was Sheep Farming In The Falklands, and it was recorded the year after the Falklands war.
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:02 (twelve years ago) link
Morley writing about the Free Trade Hall Gig? Woah! I was wondering when he'd break his silence about that gig. So many unanswered questions about whether Mick Hucknall was standing stage left or stage right, and whether Peter Hook tried to smuggle three cans of Top Brass bitter into the gig in a Tesco carrier bag or not.
― Actual LOL Tolhurst (Doran), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:05 (twelve years ago) link
xp. You're half-right and I was half-wrong. Sheep Farming, not How Does It Feel, was indeed the flexi but it was recorded and first released during the war - it was only the official seven-inch that appeared a year later.
― Strictly vote-splitting (DL), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:38 (twelve years ago) link
It's true, "Sheep Farming" was a 'comedy' song, until they decided that it needed a more serious response once people started dying...
― Mark G, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 13:45 (twelve years ago) link
I was wondering when he'd break his silence about that gig
haha
― Beth Gibbons & Foreskin Man (DJ Mencap), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 14:04 (twelve years ago) link
it was only the official seven-inch that appeared a year later.
Haha shit you're right, I had a feeling as soon as I submitted that I was myself going to be wrong in some way, it's the pedant's curse.
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Tuesday, 14 June 2011 15:53 (twelve years ago) link
Always tricky to pinpoint the first truly indie release. I get the argument for making it "So It Goes" - but as I recall, Stiff weren't absolutely totally unquestionably 100% independent, although memory fails as to in what respect. So I've always benchmarked Spiral Scratch instead: a fully homegrown operation, giving a platform to a new band (rather than a former member of a signed band). Or then again, you could start with The Count Bishops' Speedball EP on Chiswick, at the back end of 75...
― mike t-diva, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:22 (twelve years ago) link
Stiff's first bunch of singles were distributed by United Artists.
Then they 'joined' Island records, sort of.
― Mark G, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:28 (twelve years ago) link
Desperate Bicycles? Or is that way too late?
― Bus to Yoker (dog latin), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:28 (twelve years ago) link
Ah, I had Island in the back of my mind. Yeah, Desperate Bicycles were, ooh, about three or four months after Spiral Scratch - and SS did the whole "breakdown of production costs on the sleeve" thing, which kinda marked it out ideologically.
― mike t-diva, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:34 (twelve years ago) link
I think the Speedball e.p. is also what I would say.
Then again, there's always been 'independant' records, I'd even consider "Immediate" to be in the running...
― Mark G, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:35 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/series/a-history-of-dance-music?page=3 dance music bit is pretty good. thought the 90s section of the Indie one was baffling.
― piscesx, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:39 (twelve years ago) link
apart from cringey uk bits
― MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE LIVING HERE!! (Local Garda), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 11:42 (twelve years ago) link
It's mostly UK though.
Actually, seems like recent UK dance music (dubstep and onwards) gets an undue amount of prominence, it's a bit 'history as rewritten by the (current) victors'. Including Rusko and Blackout Crew is very odd when all that the entirety of Europe gets is a nod towards Daft Punk and Villalobos.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:04 (twelve years ago) link
it's not possible to condense things into these sort of lists, and it's just a newspaper covering music in the deficient way that newspapers do, is what i have to repeat to myself if i bother to start getting annoyed.
― MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE LIVING HERE!! (Local Garda), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:10 (twelve years ago) link
I really like the layout and the idea and the articles
but it's just never going to be close to finished is it?
if it was a standalone website with a staff like amg or something it could probably be amazing but its weird to tack it on to the guardian
actually a standalone website for the dance section entirely consisting of youtubes of seminal tracks would keep me occupied for months
― Popper, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:14 (twelve years ago) link
It's something to sell papers: seven supplements in seven days. The problem is that these things can never be marketed as what they are: "Seven supplements containing some things we think are interesting and will entertain you for the duration of your commute" because that's not a strong enough sell, so a stronger form of words is employed. With the result that they are then criticised for not being definitive, when they never could be within their constraints. It's true of all supplements published by all publications on all subjects, really.
― Trudi Styler, the Creator (ithappens), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:22 (twelve years ago) link
That Petridis article linked at the top is such a treasure trove.
As the spell of the 60s wore off, everyone realised they had made a terrible mistake. They didn't actually want to live in communes and share mung beans with their neighbours. Instead they headed back to the safety of their bedsits with only Joni Mitchell or James Taylor for company.
Eek. Or to bring it up closer to the present day:
Britpop died the night England were knocked out of Euro '96
! Or:
I have absolutely no idea what the next Chemical Brothers album is going to sound like.
In 2001?? I did!
― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:23 (twelve years ago) link
xpost completely otm. even the process of trying to be definitive irritates me, or (and this is awful in guardian music stuff) the comments section reserved for "what we forgot" where the first 30 are like "seems you have criminally forgotten hercules and love affair" or "i believe you've omitted booka shade, not exactly comprehensive is it???"
― MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T BE LIVING HERE!! (Local Garda), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:24 (twelve years ago) link
A while ago, every "punk" retrospective seemed to start with the NY scene, added the london scene, and then for some reason ended with James Chance / jazz.
As if someone was desperately trying to make a case for the Wag club being the natural successor to the Pistols and the 100 club..
― Mark G, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:31 (twelve years ago) link
Are we including an implicit "in the UK" when we're talking about the 1st indie release here?
― a fucking stove just fell on my foot. (Colonel Poo), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 13:50 (twelve years ago) link
Throbbing Gristle.
― Actual LOL Tolhurst (Doran), Wednesday, 15 June 2011 13:51 (twelve years ago) link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_Records
― NickB, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 13:53 (twelve years ago) link
Seems to me there's been an increase in the Guardian's metal coverage in recent months, mainly in response to the complaints of one or two serial posters on the comments board. Today there's a "classic interview with Van Halen", whoop-de-do. The problem for these commenters is that they are always whingeing that the paper's music coverage targets its core demongraphic, without saying why that's a bad thing or a surprise (you wouldn't expect to see Bonnie Prince Billy reviewed in Terrorizer). The end-of-year readers' poll was remarkably similar to the critics' poll, suggesting that the paper is getting its coverage about right.
― ban this sick stunt (anagram), Thursday, 5 January 2012 09:23 (twelve years ago) link
or its readers are sheep ;0 baaaa
― (Algerian Goalkeeper) Vs (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:21 (twelve years ago) link
Think it's also because there are quite a few interesting things happening with metal at the moment and the guy they have writing some of the stuff (Dom Lawson, i think) is good. Not sure they'd see Bonny Prince Billy as being the default kind of music they're good at covering.
― Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Thursday, 5 January 2012 14:00 (twelve years ago) link
Do they review metal albums now? or just 'crossover' ones like Mastodon?
― (Algerian Goalkeeper) Vs (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Thursday, 5 January 2012 14:30 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/jan/04/adele-success-major-label
xp Mostly crossover stuff that has a bit of traction in the alternative press - Liturgy, Wolves In The Throne Room, Ghost, etc but there are bits and pieces that cater to a wider variety of fans.
idk, i think it's great that a national newspaper has a blog whose last few pieces have been about D'angelo, Adele, David Lee Roth, Taiwanese Chart music, Goldfrapp and Maurizio Pollini.
― Mohombi Khush Hua (ShariVari), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:52 (twelve years ago) link
ahh stuff I like then. Maybe I should read it every day rather than when someone links me to it.
It's funny, I love reading reviews in print mags but I never really read online reviews. I don't even read pitchfork or anything like that.
― (Algerian Goalkeeper) Vs (Armand Schaubroeck Ratfucker), Thursday, 5 January 2012 17:56 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.brilldream.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/for-record-debunking-myth-of-vinyl.html
Imagine, if you will, a world where the media gets itself all excited about a beer revival. The BBC makes programmes about beer, full of hazily recreated shots of a heavily side-burned young man entering a 70's pub and wistfully buying a pint in a handled glass. The great and the good trip of themselves to comment about how great buying beer is. "You never forget buying your first pint" says one. "There's that silence, then a clink of glass" chimes another "then you get your first sip. It's like magic". The press flies the flag for beer. 'The Beer Revival' screams the Mail headline. "An online poll of 1,700 beer buyers found that 86 per cent of them said it was their favourite ale format. A third of today’s beer fans are aged under 35. 'Beer is back' says another. "The first half of 2013 saw sales of beer increase by over 33%, based on the previous year’s numbers.' Great, you may think to yourself, I like beer. But hang on a minute, I've been buying beer since my late teens and have never stopped, how can it be back if it never went away?
http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/nov/27/vinyls-making-a-comeback-dont-believe-the-hype
The other night, outside one of those preposterous city-centre places that is both a grocer and a restaurant, I noticed a remarkable deal on offer in the boxes of produce stacked up outside. A bunch of half a dozen or so carrots, green stalks attached at the top, soil clinging to the orange roots, was on sale for a bargain £2.50. You can stick your £1 for a bag bursting with the things from Morrison’s or Iceland, because those are the carrots I want, oh yes. And given that the stupidly priced bunch of carrots with green tops and soil is cropping up in farmers’ markets and chi-chi grocers all across Britain, then I’m calling it now. Never mind that the vast majority of people are still buying their carrots from supermarkets at a much cheaper price, and that there’s no sign of that ever changing, because I’m willing to say there’s a stupidly priced bunch of carrots comeback!
― strychnine, Thursday, 27 November 2014 18:23 (nine years ago) link
if you're trying to infer that the second article has plagiarised the first then I don't think you have even a glimmer of a case and if not idk what your point is
― proper maoist (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 27 November 2014 19:20 (nine years ago) link
no inference at all. just thought it was funny.
― strychnine, Thursday, 27 November 2014 19:30 (nine years ago) link
I wrote the Guardian vinyl blog. Had no idea about the other piece.
― Unsettled defender (ithappens), Thursday, 27 November 2014 19:48 (nine years ago) link
did not know but honestly nothing was inferred just that it seems to be a common argument used with slight variations. No offence intended.
― strychnine, Thursday, 27 November 2014 19:55 (nine years ago) link
None taken. Just pointing it out.
― Unsettled defender (ithappens), Thursday, 27 November 2014 20:11 (nine years ago) link
Also making a comeback:http://www.adafruit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/abacus.jpg
― everything, Thursday, 27 November 2014 20:36 (nine years ago) link