THE WORST NME COVER OF ALL TIME

a *thing. not a think. but maybe a think.

That's right! It was just that "one bad apple" that "one time" and not at all a pattern that happened to me, or any other bands, and there is nothing wrong with that NME list and music journalism has got so much better over the past 15 years, yes*!

*are you kidding me

influence is a thing but rly it's neither a list of names the artist will reel off in interviews nor is it whatever points of comparison first pop into the reviewer's head, though it's probably more the former than it is the latter. dropping a few names sure doesn't work as an easy shorthand for summing up the various social, individual, and collective forces that come together when people make music.

i had to look up what 'Crystalized' was.

i guess i'm just suggesting that just because you yourself were not influenced by other artists, and that artists you've spoken to weren't influenced by other artists, that it doesn't mean no artists are ever influenced by other artists. Like I said, I've discussed influence as a thing and influences in general and specificity with artists a lot over the years, and many artists have been willing and open to discuss those influences. I don't mean its always as simple as "I liked this band so I tried to sound like this band", although occasionally it has. Jack White, for instance, has always made it explicit the extent to which he was influenced by specific blues artists, in part to establish his persona, in part to doff a cap to his heroes, and in part out of honesty. I don't doubt there aren't artists whose ideas spark into their head with no external influence - but that's not been, from my experience, the totality, or even the majority.

And as for the person who interviewed you, they sound like they were being a dick. Some of them are dicks. There are also lots of journalists who I respect as interviewers and writers, and its a shame for you that you weren't interviewed by one of them.

Also, re: influence, its a thing to talk about, isn't it, to help a reader know where an artist is coming from? If you want to call that marketing as opposed to criticism then knock yourself out, but I'm sure as heck being paid critics' rates and not marketeers' rates.

I don't know. I mean, part of why I write about music is I'm genuinely fascinated by the creative process, where the ideas come from, what feeds them, what shapes them, and so on. So influence is a part of that. I'm curious about this stuff. I don't do this so I can write about blow and groupies and lurid nonsense, the creative process is often the meatiest part.

i agree with merdeyeux, influence is probably a thing but closer to "everything" than "specific things" and the laundry list of bands-in-our-field with a couple of curveballs (one of whom is usually aaliyah) is a boring thing indeed, and THAT is definitely more about marketing than the creative process

whatever the mechanisms of influence might be, i think when an artist is described as "influential" then it is mostly external factors that are being described and trying to trace influence in that direction is a critical rather than artistic pursuit

I was going to ask what the Gun club thing said, then went and looked on the site to find this
'7. The Gun Club. : "They play very intense blues punk and I don't think anybody's really done it like that since then. It's incredible. People talk about how The Velvet Underground and how they weren't popular but they influenced a bunch of bands. The Gun Club are the same way."

Read more at http://www.nme.com/photos/nme-s-100-most-influential-artists-50-1/346061/1/1#KIIXvxvdweKVDHXD.99'

which sounds contradictory. & at best some kind of distant hearsay. I'm not sure who was being quoted there anyway.
I was wondering what the story was on bands influenced by them given the qualification I read elsewhere. & I'd really like to know who they are. They might be something I'd like to be listening to.
But then again I'd probably have the same feeling as I do with the MC5, if there was another band as outstanding as the MC5 in a later era they couldn't really sound the same since their originality was a strong factor and a later clone would be pretty different. ( That is if you don't just think of MC5 as being the Who with another guitarist and a possibly harder hitting sound)
I'm not sure you 'd arrive at a decent approximation of The Gun Club without the internal chemistry of the band both positive and negative. & that's probably down to the personalities involved.
Same is probably true with The Birthday Party, Swans, Sonic youth and a number of others.

But that is probably a different thing to what influence one would take from any of those bands.

Stevie, do you think that that thing you are describing is the impetus behind this NME list? Or is it more of a marketing exercise, in terms of "readers of the NME like bands that 'sound like' or 'look like' these bands"?

And take the example of the White Stripes; I know if you talk to Jack White, that he will namecheck the blues artists that he dug, and that's the kind of "influence" you're talking about.

But if you take the wave of bands that were signed in the wake of the White Stripes' success - your Kills and your Raveonettes (and some other bands I'm sure I've forgotten) - those bands were signed because they had the right "stylish boy-girl duo" look and the right "stripped-down blues-influenced roots rock" sound to appeal to ~people who liked the White Stripes~. But if you talked to those bands, I bet they wouldn't say they were "influenced by the White Stripes", they'd say they were influenced by Link Wray or the Jesus and Mary Chain, or whoever. These bands did not pick up a guitar because of the White Stripes. But they certainly got picked up on by the press/record companies because they fit into a specific look/sound pigeonhole. What's the word for the nebulous term that's gone on there? Because it's not "influence". And yet *that* thing is what lists like the NME's list here are showing.

Who's the "Influence"? The original blues artists? The White Stripes? The Jesus & Mary Chain/Link Wray/whoever the other bands are gonna namecheck?

THinking about influences, there always used to be regular columns of the Portrait Of The Artist As A Consumer type where the artist gives a list of things that are significant to them at least in hindsight. Or alternatively at the current moment which isn't the same as influences that lead them to where their successful sound came from but might give some insight into the current one.

I was just wondering if there were things like that in NME etc these days.

Melody Maker also used to run intermittent features of artists listing their top 10s or whatever. I found some very interesting music from there. Odd to see things like Genesis P Orridge listing a lot of psych & acid folk in the late 80s.

An A&R rep?

xpost

The Quietus' Baker's Dozen feature is a modern analogue of that kind of feature. And generally really interesting. And not about 'influence' necessarily.

~Influence~: "Pretenders have aped Joy Division’s sound, but they didn’t have the same spirit. Now, though, true heirs have arrived." <- what does that even *mean*?

Stevie, do you think that that thing you are describing is the impetus behind this NME list? Or is it more of a marketing exercise, in terms of "readers of the NME like bands that 'sound like' or 'look like' these bands"?

Honestly, I think the impetus behind this list is just to cook up a "new" "twist" on the same dull list features that have smothered the music press for over a decade now. It's definitely marketing, but I'm unwilling to dismiss the whole concept of influence just because there's another unimaginative feature concept here.

What you're talking about with regards to the bands signed in the wake of the White Stripes, sure, the marketing dudes are "influenced" by the success of the White Stripes and might market them like that. To be honest that side of the business has never held any interest to me. I think a good critic would be able to discern what those artists' "true" influences were, and a lazy critic will just cite the "influences" mentioned on the press release.

But the truth is that sometimes bands/artists are as cynically "influenced" by another artist's success as the marketing departments you are talking about. That hysterical douchebag from Razorlight was shopping around various different incarnations before shaping himself in the guise of the bands who were big then and hitting some fleeting success.

I'd argue also that a lot of artists may not be conscious of who they're influenced by, and a critic might be able to hazard a wise guess that would be more illuminating than who they say they're influenced by. In the end it's just conjecture.

Anyway, I was mostly responding to your suggestion/insistence that "people are still discussing "influence" as if it is a real thing." As I said before, it may not be for you, but I've discussed influence and influences often with artists, and often found it illuminating.

The NME List is probably just the writers for the rag trying to bring attention to their favourite artists. I've barely glimpsed at what the contents are, while fast forwarding to get to the Gun Club but it does seem there are some oddly placed names at least in terms of that being a heirarchical list.

But that thing about these other somewhat similar bands being signed is something that has gone on for years. Certainly during times like Mersey beat, punk and whatever.
I think i noticed something similar with film actor/resses where somebody like Sigourney Weaver gets discovered because Faye Dunaway is popular or something. & that's just down to some level of facial resemblance. I could be wrong on that example but it does seem that there has been some level of that happening over the years.

Still having a scene of very original bands may be very difficult for those doing the signing. Reducing originality to a formula that can be cloned and marketed is counterproductive, at least in terms of quality.

~Influence~: "Pretenders have aped Joy Division’s sound, but they didn’t have the same spirit. Now, though, true heirs have arrived." <- what does that even *mean*?

I guess that sound and spirit aren't necessarily the same thing - that you can 'sound' like something, but maybe there's an energy, a quality, that's absent. I don't know, that's not a particularly illuminating sentence, and truly I don't want t hear any bands in 2014 who sound or share the spirit of Joy Division.

Also influence always struck me as being at its most important in the formative stages of a band, before they started writing their own original material i.e. found their own voice.

and yes, those quietus bakers dozens are often lots of fun (and illuminating, seemingly my word of the day) to read.

one last point (and then i need to go off and think up some "funny" photo captions) but I remember Jack White complaining that critics often made comparisons between his voice and Robert Plant's, and him responding that Plant was his least favourite element of Led Zeppelin and that was why he found the comparisons offensive. I don't think he sounds a huge amount like Plant, but he doesn't sound unlike Plant, in some moments.

also, my favourite album of the year so far is kate tempest's, and I'm bummed that I haven't had a chance to interview her, because I'm really fascinated to know where she's coming from, influence-wise - literary as well as pop-wise, as well as life-wise - because I would love to know what led her to make that album.

What you're talking about with regards to the bands signed in the wake of the White Stripes, sure, the marketing dudes are "influenced" by the success of the White Stripes and might market them like that. To be honest that side of the business has never held any interest to me.

See, I find *that* side of the music business absolutely fascinating. The fads, the trends, the bandwagons, how they form, how they get dismantled, what drives those weird memetic fashions in music and genre. How artists both contribute to the process, and subvert the process. I find that sort of thing amazing and illuminating. Some of my favourite narratives-of-artists have been ones who were opportunistically signed at the end of a bandwagon, and exploded into something completely different. (I'm specifically thinking here of Blur getting signed at the tail end of Baggy here.)

I mean, yeah, there are bands like Razorlight, who will go jumping on any bandwagon just to get signed. I know that happens. And then there are the more nebulous cases. The link of The Stokes -> The Cribs is an interesting one. (I've told this story a million times before but I'll tell it again.) Because we met them before they were The Cribs, in fact, they buttonholed us at one of our gigs, talking my ear off about Riot Grrrl and Kill Rock Stars and K Records, and all the stuff that they were into. Then we came back on our next tour, and almost overnight, they had metamorphosed into a Strokes-a-like band, changed their clothes, their hair, even their *name*. Were they "influenced" by The Strokes? Was that a cynical bandwagon-jumping exercise in trying to get signed? (I guess it worked!) And yet, I still occasionally read interviews with them, and they're back to talking about Riot Grrrl and K Records as if that whole Strokes thing was just a T-shirt they put on to get signed. It was a lot more complicated than it looked.

To me, those questions about "how creativity" works are actually ... it's not that they're boring, so much as they are *inexplicable*. The two most common answers are: 1) "I tried to write a song that sounded like something completely different, and this came out" or 2) "I have no idea, it's like listening to the radio, songs are just out there, and all I do is write them down." It's as personal to that artist, and as opaque to anyone else as trying to describe "what did you dream last night" or "what does an orgasm feel like". It loses something in the retelling; turns a process which seems like it should be profound into something on a level of "groupies and blow" (and you know what, I wouldn't go dismissing the influence of drugs or women on art, either, TBH.)

I'd argue also that a lot of artists may not be conscious of who they're influenced by, and a critic might be able to hazard a wise guess that would be more illuminating than who they say they're influenced by. In the end it's just conjecture.

Do you have any idea how patronising this sounds? This is exactly what I'm talking about; bands who will be *told* by critics that they were ~influenced by~ things they may never have heard. Critics who think they know more about the artist than the people themselves do: seriously, get over yourself. This is the worst. This is the kind of attitude that prompts me to say things like "There is no such thing as influence."

Amazed that any band would admit to being influenced by the Strokes at this stage, they should be at peak levels of unfashionable right now.

Totally with Bramwell on the marketing side of things. Find it fascinating. Also adore the "what are you listening to" type aspect of artist interviews, but I think that's something different to 'influence'.

Philosophically, in terms of both marketing and art and psychology, most people don't know specifically what they're channeling, a lot of the time, just because there's too much stuff being channeled, some of it deliberately and a lot of it not so.

Bramwell, have you seen the recent Swedish film "We Are The Best"? I'd be intrigued to know what you think of it if you have.

xpost - aye, nothing so uncool as 10-12 years after its peak. But they might be about to roll past that uncool point?

The point at which "totally uncool and unfashionable" turns into "elder statesmen of rock" is about 12 years.

See, I find *that* side of the music business absolutely fascinating. The fads, the trends, the bandwagons, how they form, how they get dismantled, what drives those weird memetic fashions in music and genre.

i find it fascinating too, but i have about as much idea re: the answers as i did ten years ago, because no one ever cops to this happening until 10-20 years after the fact! at the time, most critics just prop up the narrative that whatever "trend" scene dominates the music press at the moment really is the most exciting, most NOW thing happening rather than anything to do with marketing or hype bubbles...

How much is that to do with musicians and artists and writers (etc etc) (of a certain stripe) wanting to feel that they are immune to such influences?

Thing is, with historical hindsight plus "there at the time" knowledge, who gets roped in vs who gets left out is also really, super interesting. (And reveals the historians' biases, hugely.)

I don't mean for it to be patronising - what I mean is, an artist might not be consciously able to pull apart their art that way, they may not even be inclined to - it might spoil "the magic", and so on. The critic, as an external force, might be able to hear clearer at a distance. I know you've clearly taken a very partisan stance against "the critic" but isn't any listener able to offer their own take on their music? Or is the creator's take on it the only valid one? Because that flies in the face of everything I've ever understood about art and how it is received and consumed, and I don't believe it one bit - in fact, I find it impossibly patronising of *the listener*.

And sure, drugs and women (or men, men can be groupies too) are powerful influences - that's not what I'm saying, and I'm guessing you know that. I'm saying that discussing the art and what made it is infinitely more interesting to me than the rote sleaze and boasting many magazines seem to prize above all. That stuff that would never make for a great pull-quote is often the substance for all this.

And can you stop making out that I'm some patronising villainous critic, maybe? I think its hugely misrepresentative of my work and how I approach it, and its something I take very seriously, and that's something I'd argue is borne out by my body of work, and I don't really appreciate being slighted because some dick from a fanzine told you you were influenced by Sleater Kinney. And I won't judge you on the experiences I've had with shithead musicians.

Stevie, you know that I have consistently taken the Barthes position on fandom, and the listener's interpretation is just as valid as the creator's interpretation of a piece of art.

But what I am *AGAINST* is the idea of "music critic" as some kind of ~Super-Listener~ who somehow ~knows the artist's intentions better than the artist does~. That is complete fucking bullshit. You can argue interpretations. The critic's position is one interpretation, among many. (And it's often a position I, personally, tend to de-prioritise, on account of the demographics of who tends to be "music critics".) This whole idea that the critic takes one interpretation, turns it into an intention, and calls it ~influence~? That's pernicious bullshit!

And the more that you try to paint this as "just me" having "one bad experience" with one dickhead "fanzine writer" - the irony is, I only went to look up the Joy Division entry because I wanted to know if they mentioned Int*rp*l. Another case in point, of a band who have been told their entire career that they must have been influenced by Joy Division, when it's impossible to talk to Int*rp*l for more than a minute without discovering that actually their principle songwriter was actually way, way more inspired and influenced by Fugazi? This is not some ~isolated experience~ of mine. It's a common thread with many artists, in their dealings with the british press.

I mean, gah, being oversensitive above there, but it really is a drag to be trying to discuss this from a critic's point of view and to be constantly told that I'm being patronising for not swallowing the artist's press release unquestioningly. The listener's perspective has validity too. And the artist is occasionally masking the fact that they might be a little too influenced by another artist. Although your band were clearly, from what I remember, not influenced by Sleater Kinney.

xp

I don't think anyone's take-away from this thread is that you're a "patronising villainous critic", dude, not at all.

xposts.

enjoying this but can i be nosey? i don't know new ilx names so can someone say who bramnwell used to be/wh4t b4nd N's 1n?

Please DON'T, thanks, hoy hoy.

Always baffles me that I can recognise Bramwell's tone at about 1000 yards regardless of username but I can't keep track of anyone else who changes their name.

its cool, i knew i was being nosey.

I mean, I think everybody's main takeaway of this thread is "the NME is a shitstained rag of an excuse for music writing" but I think that no longer needs to even be stated. ;-)

I can recognise Bramwell's tone at about 1000 yards

But you still can't SPELL my damn "tone" ppttttthhhhtt :-P

(Now can we please not continue on this topic, IRL-identity-speculation does genuinely upset and worry me. Thanks.)

Damnit.

I mean, fair enough. To be honest Interpol never held my interest long enough for me to discover if they sounded much like Joy Division (though if I'd heard much that reminded me of Fugazi I'd have listened closer). It seems insane to me that an interviewer would posit to an artist that they *had* heard a band when they hadn't - not saying it doesn't happen or didn't happen to you, more that I don't understand where they think that might go as a critical gambit. The whole question of "influence", like I said above, is often a guess to place an artist in some kind of context, a shorthand, certainly in reviews - but again, artists' relationship to the music that first inspired them can be a really illuminative path of inquiry.

And it doesn't have to be music - one of the most interesting interviews I did last year (and it should have been, considering it lasted 5 hours and included very confrontational passages where the artist was explicitly fucking with me) was with an artist whose new album was mainly inspired/influenced by his first serious relationship, an influence/inspiration he teased discussing with me for a large part of the interview, before opening up later on, as he'd clearly wanted to do throughout.

Influenced by and reminded of = not analogues (of course, of course, I know you know, etc etc). But Fugazi are kidn of a perfect example of influence here, because what might artists influenced by them takeaway? A guitar tone? A compositional approach? A lyrical direction? A DIY business model / ethic? Taken independently any one of these pieces might be indiscernible to any given listener.

That's a good point. If I say your band sounds like the Stooges, there might be a different Stooges that lives in my head to the Stooges that live in your head. One of the challenges of criticism, I guess.

eh, I'm not making sense any more. off to fashion those puns...

Exactly; this is why the "sounds like X" is such a meaningless way of describing music, because what you like about Fugazi might be completely different from what I hear in Fugazi.

I said a few months ago that "I like this bit of this song by this band because it reminds me of this bit of this song by this band but made into a pop song", and pretty much everyone else I knew went "I like it because it sounds like this whole other band that you don't even like and specifically are unfamiliar with this era of" and I had to just go "oh". #u2

People experience the world in vastly different ways, even if it seems like they have stuff in common to start with. I'm as solipsistic as they come in many ways but even I have to recognise that fact (and work hard with it every day in my job).

this is why the "sounds like X" is such a meaningless way of describing music, because what you like about Fugazi might be completely different from what I hear in Fugazi.

It's at-best imperfect, but, short of just directing people to youtube clips/spotify links (and fuck that btw) its a way of starting a/the discussion.

I mean "the Stooges that live in your head vs the Stooges that live in my head" is the most pithy and valid thing you've said on this thread, Stevie, and I know *exactly* what you mean.

Years and years of saying that I loved the Velvet Underground, and failing to understand why so many bands that did three chords & a ton of feedback while wearing leather jackets failed to capture what I loved about the Velvets - I guess this is what they *meant* about the "spirit" as opposed to the "sound" of Joy Division (though, honestly, I, too, am *tired* of both.) It took me decades to realise that "feedback plus drugs" was not what I was responding to in the Velvets, but "Queerness and the painful yet ultimately beautiful poetry of accepting yourself in the Other and the Other in yourself" was.

Alan Moore once offered a useful variation on this - "The poem that you read might be better than the one that I wrote" - and claimed it came from Eliot, but I can't find corroboration of this, now.