smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Matthew George <abertawe@gmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Top 20 of 2004 poll update |
| Date | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 00:43:36 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (2.8 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
AssociationWorks wrote:
> I'm just surprised to see FF lumped in with nine
> other top albums
> I would consider more befitting the tastes of people on this list...and I
> chalk it up to HYPE.
You think that little of this list and its members? The diversity in
the poll is, I think, a fantastic tribute to the open mindedness of
the list's members. I've picked up on loads of bands by following
recommendations on this mailing list, and not all of them sounded like
Jellyfish. Whenever somebody writes to say they enjoyed a Wildhearts
album, I let out a quiet whimper of delight - in the 90s, the
Wildhearts were written off as a scuzzy pub-rock band with heroin
habits the size of their riffs. But they write superb pop songs.
> IMHO....FF is a very mediocre indie pop record that is riding the successful
> wave of post-punk revivalism spawned by other peddler of rehash like the
> Strokes, Interpol, etc. Had the album not received half the gushing press
> and radio play they got in 2004 no one on this list would give a
> rats ass about them.
I first heard Darts of Pleasure on XFM in the UK, some time before
anyone gave your rat's ass about them. Their next single (Take me
out) was picked up, and the hype began. I was starting to dread the
arrival of their album. But it arrived, and it was excellent. And
there's no way I'm going to go off an album because a music rag has
told everyone else they should check it out.
If Arcade Fire somehow become a massive global act in the next year or
two, filling arenas with screaming teenagers and inflatable farmyard
animals, I won't go off their first album. OK, it's not a situation
I'm going to need to deal with, but it's a hypothesis. Or a
hype-othesis, if you will.
If hype occasionally gets people listening to good music, then I have
no problem with it. We can sneer when something useless is hyped up
because of a spurious celebrity-tittle-tattle connection, or because
the singer's hair looks like an immaculately coiffed chipmunk's arse.
But when they hype something that is packed with excellent tunes and
ideas, we should be big enough to sit back and admit they're right.
> fire away pop soldiers,
I took the bait. Just wanted to say something, as most members of this
list surely must have experienced a band they felt they had
"discovered" getting picked up and hyped around. I didn't like the
(Thorns) album, but I'm sure plenty of auditeers experienced this with
The Thorns a couple of years ago. Sometimes the things you like are
appreciated by the masses. It's best to deal with this and continue
having fun, rather than getting stroppy and moaning about the
late-comers.
Matt.
p.s. Apologies if you get this message twice. The first one
disappeared down a pipe, so I don't know if it'll pop out of the other
end at some point.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.