― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 3 June 2005 20:51 (eighteen years ago) link
YOUR 11 FAVORITE MISSPELLINGS OF KELEFA SANNEH'S NAME, FUCK
― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Friday, 3 June 2005 20:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 3 June 2005 20:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― studiowiz, Friday, 3 June 2005 20:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― studiowiz, Friday, 3 June 2005 20:57 (eighteen years ago) link
You might think that retro-rock bands would water down the music they borrow from, but the opposite tends to be true: everything comes back more vivid
...which if anything sounds positive (but then again, is it?).
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 June 2005 20:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― noizem duke (noize duke), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:19 (eighteen years ago) link
Sanneh is nowhere near as good at broadsheet populism as Petridish (which isn't saying much, I concede) and makes just as many factual errors. (Bloc Party Scottish? I sure hope someone got fired for that) Why is this site perpetually fascinated by such a mediocre writer?
― snotty moore, Friday, 3 June 2005 21:22 (eighteen years ago) link
I think we've just spotted the flaw here. ;-)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link
"snotty" maybe its because he's 1) not mediocre and 2) covering music that no one else is covering in the new york times in a comprehensive and intelligent way? Did you see how happy matt sonzala was with sanneh's houston rap scene piece?
― deej., Friday, 3 June 2005 21:25 (eighteen years ago) link
Having less ideas than the people they rob from.
That was how I read it anyway.
― fandango (fandango), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:26 (eighteen years ago) link
Ignores rock that doesn't scan between a gap ad and the indie shop, more to life than what's on Pazz'n'jop, standard grumble grumble
― miccio (miccio), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:28 (eighteen years ago) link
x-post
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― deej., Friday, 3 June 2005 21:30 (eighteen years ago) link
I scanned this really quickly. Apologies. I'm not sure I agree with "You might think that retro-rock bands would water down the music they borrow from, but the opposite tends to be true: everything comes back more vivid." at all fwiw.
― fandango (fandango), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
x-post there's a lot of bands don't make pazz'n'jop but play rock that depending on your sympathy, you may or may not consider retro. He's right to note the retro tendencies popular today (though it's pretty easy to make a case that every band synthesizes their influences) but if he's going to accuse 'rock' in general of it I'd wish he'd acknowledge more of rock.
― miccio (miccio), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
and ok um, Bloc Party is even more devoted to jittery guitars and clipped bass lines than its post-punk forebears Gang of Four, who are currently packing in young fans on the alt-rock oldies circuit. Devotion?
I'm really sympathetic to his point that retro != unoriginal, but I wish he did a better job of pointing out what makes these groups unique rather than weirdly implying they're better.
― miccio (miccio), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:46 (eighteen years ago) link
this isn't even true. oh, i could go on and on... (well, maybe it was a mild shock to him, but i don't see how. he probably hears more music than i do. or maybe he missed the 10 years of brian wilson worship and blooze explosionisms. or even the 80's soundz that have been pumping for almost a decade now.)
― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:53 (eighteen years ago) link
Yeah, it's incredibly lazy. The fact that the Strokes are pegged as the revival point shows how effectively they were able to build their own myth *and* how rapidly it was fallen for. I'm not saying that the myth can't exist or doesn't have a purpose -- or even that it's not entertaining, it is. But stating something like this by rote -- I'm sorry, but I so don't buy it.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― don weiner (don weiner), Friday, 3 June 2005 21:58 (eighteen years ago) link
"Why is this site perpetually fascinated by such a mediocre writer?"
no idea. dont think hes terrible, i just have a hard time figuring out if he ever has anything he really wants to say, or if hes really saying anything that exciting at all. it all just seems desperately middlebrow, inoffensive, mild and MOR.
or "maybe its because he's 2) covering music that no one else is covering in the new york times in a comprehensive and intelligent way? Did you see how happy matt sonzala was with sanneh's houston rap scene piece?"
well scene-people/specialists usually love it when their scene or local artists or whatever get bigged up in a large newspaper, even if the coverage isnt that great or special. its like 'oh cool such and such big paper is covering it! thats coverage for the scene! thats great!' or theyre just so overcome that some bigwig is doing something on it, their pants get wet and they dont care about anything else (except drying their pants).
― studiowiz, Friday, 3 June 2005 22:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Friday, 3 June 2005 22:42 (eighteen years ago) link
'My Doorbell' doesn't half sound like 'Let's Go Dancing (Ooh Reggae Dancing)' by Kool and the Gang.
― snotty moore, Friday, 3 June 2005 22:48 (eighteen years ago) link
If the Strokes are seen as being more in the garage rock vein (as opposed to the nu wave vein), then the trend dates back to the late seventies w/ bands like DMZ and such. There was the whole paisley underground thing concurrent w/ tons of garage rock revivalism in the '80s. Genre never really died, but started kicking again quite a bit in early '90s w/ Gories, Mummies, Cheater Slicks, Night Kings, Supercharger, etc.
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:13 (eighteen years ago) link
I guess part of it is just having someone at someplace like the NYT who's at least listening to and aware of a broad range of music. I'm less hung up on his value as a stylist than as a sort of populist critic in the Roger Ebert mode who can make potentially obscure things seem accessible -- and who has pretty good taste, too.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:20 (eighteen years ago) link
i'd love to see some of this brit daily paper writing that's so much better than sanneh's times stuff (which is generally way, way better than this white stripes review by the way.) i'm not being sarcastic, though i guess i'm being skeptical. i never had any idea that the brit press had much to say about music at all in this day and age. i sure haven't seen it do so, but i'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
xp
― xhuxk, Friday, 3 June 2005 23:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Friday, 3 June 2005 23:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:51 (eighteen years ago) link
― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 3 June 2005 23:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:01 (eighteen years ago) link
aren't the strokes supposed to sound like television and other 70's dudes? i actually never thought they were that retro to begin with.
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:04 (eighteen years ago) link
gypsy mothra said it better.
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:06 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― bugged out, Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 4 June 2005 00:15 (eighteen years ago) link
I was thinking more of certain scenes that tried to slavishly imitiate acid house or detroit techno. Or west coast '90s rap songs that used Parliament loops. Sure, it's incredibly lazy to call that stuff retro which was my whole point. It's equally lazy to dismiss the Strokes or White Stripes as being retro. The term retro is mildly descriptive at best but it doesn't work as a criticism.
For example, I think Lenny Kravitz sucks but not simply because he's retro. It would be hypocritical of my to criticize him in those terms since I love for example Stereolab who is even more ridiculously retro.
As a criticism, the term retro is just a lazy shorthand that stands in for the old biases for originality and authenticity. It's a way to criticize music you don't like by implying that it's not doing anything innovative or that the artists and fans are merely playing with a nostalgiac pose. But my point is that these standards are not applied consistently. Another artist with an equally retrograde sensibility will be given a pass if the critic likes his music.
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:24 (eighteen years ago) link
Adding rapping to p-funk tracks (as well as turning them into, you know, three minute pop songs) is a huge difference. Obviously its all relative but I think its entirely reasonable to use the words "retro" in some situations.
I dont think he uses "retro" as a pejorative at all! You're reading a lot more into what he's saying than he actually wrote.
(I dont think its ks's best article by far - he's much more at home with hip-hop, pop, etc....i didnt like his slint piece much either - but I think he made some good points, even if he also made some rather broad generalizations)
― deej., Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:40 (eighteen years ago) link
i mean, the search for antecedents is one of the favorite forms of critical one-upmanship but it could go on forever and in this case i think sort of misses the point.
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:14 (eighteen years ago) link
Re Amateurist's point: perhaps the article is understandably focused on the US, but if we're talking about bands/movements with "nationwide, not-just-college-radio-type exposure" based around "selfconscious retro-ism" then surely the model for this is Britpop??
But yeah, The Strokes are part of a different "movement"...
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:37 (eighteen years ago) link
well, all of the bands I listed above had nationwide, not-jus-college-radio type exposure, actually. and i'm still not sure anybody has explained what the strokes are retro *to* -- they don't sound like a '60s garage band, they don't sound like the velvet underground, they don't sound like television, they don't sound like the cars; basically, the one band they really sound like is, um, the strokes. and yes, they do *draw* on those influences, but not more than, say, black crowes/urge overkill/local h/everclear/weezer/buck cherry/oasis/etc drew on allman brothers/bad company/elvis costello/cars/ac-dc/t. rex/beatles/etc. which is to say, if the strokes are "retro," i still really don't understand how those (quite popular) '90s bands were *not* retro. unless you're just talking clothes and haircuts (though, as i recall, urge overkill and the dandy warhols kinda dressed in period garb, and so did the black crowes, though obviously the perioid was different). strokes do what rock bands pretty much *always* do -- they recombine influences that have already existed. (which is also what hip-hop acts sampling old funk records under '70s-style soul vocals and daft punk mimicking eurodisco and kenny chesney shuffling mellencamp/petty/buffet and the killers mixing up duran/gang of four/"queen bittch" etc. do, obviously. i'm not sure i see a difference - they're all retro, or they're all not.) and though i really don't want to dissect kelefah''s piece--it' really doesn't bother me all that much, and he can be a great writer in ways unheard of among daily paper critics--i do think his main point here is to put forward the idea that white stripes suddenly came up with this idea that you can recombine different parts of old sounds into a new sound. and my quesion is: who *doesn''t* do that? so yeah, as he says. maybe it IS time to retire the term 'retro-rock'" (assuming anybody actually uses that term in the first place -- isn't it sort of a straw man? though maybe i just talk to and read different people than k does). but it''s not time to retire it because of the new white stripes LP (which, as somebody above said, sounds good, and pretty much the same as their other albums, on which they recombined old influences as well; i'm glad kelefah loves it, but they never sounded particularly purist to me) it's time to retire the phrase because it really never meant all that much in the first place!
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:56 (eighteen years ago) link
not sure i agree with this (there are *lots* of models for this kinda {bowel} movement), but i think it's an interesting thought, since didn't the strokes actually hit first (and perhaps bigger) in england? they definitely seemed to be on tour there a lot, when they just had EPs out. (in fact, i think their first EP may have showed up on american shores as a UK import.) and the same thing has happened with some american post-strokes new-new-wave hypes since -- definitely the bravery and the scissors sisters (if they count); not sure who else.(do interpol have brit hits? in the states, near as i can tell, they've never gotten much beyond college radio, though anthony can check the charts and correct me i'm wrong.) so maybe the reason i don' t notice the movement as much as some other people here is that i don't read the british music papers, who may well have invented the movement in the first place...
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 15:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 15:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 5 June 2005 15:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 5 June 2005 15:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 16:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Sunday, 5 June 2005 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 17:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― Cool Hand Luuke (ex machina), Sunday, 5 June 2005 18:01 (eighteen years ago) link
The LA Sunday Times today turned the subject of this thread into a grease spot with a story so big, the pictures alone take up more space than the column inches of Sanneh. The photos, of which there are four of Jack and Meg White, are all bigger than your head! Get the print version, cut them out and use them as masks!
Robert Hilburn travelled to Pine Grove, Pennsylvania, strike that, Detroit, MI, to interview Jack and a silent Meg White.
Excerpts, you'll swoon:
..."Get Behind Me Floyd" is a daring creative advance..."
"The White Stripes' Jack White is ready for a break as he slips behind the wheel of his vintage four-seat..."
"A new sound of independence..." (in 50-point pika, or whatever the designation is for lettering that's really big)
"The fifth album proves they've earned their stripes..."
"...the recording sessions left even the normally workaholic White drained..."
"Everything about Jack White's car, from the upholstery to the tinny radio -- is original - except for the supercharged engine features that make the car roar loud as a jet..."
"White makes his way back to the living room and sits in a chair by a picture of Rita Hayworth..."
"She was a metaphor for everything I could think of...the red hair, the innocence, the fact that she lost her memory to Alzheimer's..."
"I hate the celebrity stuff," [said White]. It trivializes everything..."
"Meg's so shy it's probably a relief Jack does all the talking..."
"Whatever his musical path, White is unlikely to temper his musical vision..."
http://www.latimes.com -- ya can't miss it. Subscription site, useBugmenot.
― Harry Klam, Sunday, 5 June 2005 18:15 (eighteen years ago) link
I'll give 'em a pass on the car though: could be a Detroit thing (search, Woodward Dream Cruise)
http://www.woodwarddreamcruise.com/Photos.html
― rogermexico (rogermexico), Sunday, 5 June 2005 18:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Harry Klam, Sunday, 5 June 2005 18:59 (eighteen years ago) link
I suspect that from a UK Press perspective, The Strokes weren't really a reaction against non-rock (though there were still a lot of "Rock is back!" taglines) so much as a reaction to not-so-rock rock that had had a lot of currency at that point in time - on the one hand US pansy-psych-pop like latter-day The Flaming Lips and Mercury Rev, and on the other hand the mournful MoR of Coldplay and Travis. The battlefield as such is more intra-rock (and only a small part of it) than rock vs [x].
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 5 June 2005 21:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 5 June 2005 21:29 (eighteen years ago) link