I find it hard to believe that you're complaining about the conformity of indie-rock and praising the diversity of mainstream chart-toppers.

The Minutemen - Double Nickels On The Dime

There are some mainstream chart toppers I like. I put Erykah Badu's album pretty high on my list. But most of the pop music I hear is above average at best, absolutely terrible at worst. And most of it fits neatly into one of four or five categories.

There's absolutely some conformity in indie rock, but in pop very few of them still even write their own songs and play their own instruments. A pop star today is more or less a manufactured product, dissociated from the entire creative process.

Erykah Badu's topping the charts these days?

I don't pay attention to the pop charts, but as far as I know, Erykah Badu has been in the mainstream for a bit..

Amd RL, I think you're taking Odyssey's post out of context. You make it seem as if he's stating that all indie rock is stale and conforming while the mainstream is constantly fresh. That wasn't what he was saying at all... he seemed to be stating that he (as many of us probably do) gets tired of the indie circuit and takes a break to acknowledge the occasional good track that hits the charts. While I rarely go to the charts to take a break from some of my staples, I can definitely see the validity in his statement.

quote:

Originally posted by JustSomeIdiot:
There's absolutely some conformity in indie rock, but in pop very few of them still even write their own songs and play their own instruments. A pop star today is more or less a manufactured product, dissociated from the entire creative process.

So? Philosophical differences, I guess. Music is music. I don't really care how or by whom it was created. And this is hardly true for every pop star, anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:
I don't pay attention to the pop charts, but as far as I know, Erykah Badu has been in the mainstream for a bit..

Amd RL, I think you're taking Odyssey's post out of context. You make it seem as if he's stating that all indie rock is stale and conforming while the mainstream is constantly fresh. That wasn't what he was saying at all... he seemed to be stating that he (as many of us probably do) gets tired of the indie circuit and takes a break to acknowledge the occasional good track that hits the charts. While I rarely go to the charts to take a break from some of my staples, I can definitely see the validity in his statement.

What he said.

I am in no way saying that everything on the top of the charts is great - of course not. But there are a few pop stars the indie media would be going apeshit for if they came from an indie background. Shakira is a great example. And there are indie stars, for lack of a better term, who would most likely be ignored by critics if they had bigger recording and advertising budgets or less prestigious connections. Tegan and Sara are a great example. It works both ways.

My comment about the pop world moving faster than the indie world is true. Some songs that topped the charts even a year ago would be completely out of place today, let alone songs from 5 years ago. The same isn't true for the most popular indie rock. Indie rock makes up for this by being far more diverse at any given time, you just need to look a little harder. But if sans, or anyone, wants to find solid music that sounds absolutely nothing like a critic's best-of list, he'll find some by turning a sensitive ear towards Billboard. I'm a misanthrope, but even I'm not enough of an asshole to think that the masses are too dumb to find *any* good music.

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:
I don't pay attention to the pop charts, but as far as I know, Erykah Badu has been in the mainstream for a bit..

Amd RL, I think you're taking Odyssey's post out of context. You make it seem as if he's stating that all indie rock is stale and conforming while the mainstream is constantly fresh. That wasn't what he was saying at all... he seemed to be stating that he (as many of us probably do) gets tired of the indie circuit and takes a break to acknowledge the occasional good track that hits the charts. While I rarely go to the charts to take a break from some of my staples, I can definitely see the validity in his statement.

I can see the validity in such a statement, but that's not what he said. I don't know what this means if it doesn't mean there's more diversity and progression in mainstream chart-toppers than indie rock:

quote:

At the very least it doesn't sound anything like Animal Collective, and it sure does evolve a hell of a lot faster than what tops the standard Pitchfork lists month after month.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
I'm a misanthrope, but even I'm not enough of an asshole to think that the masses are too dumb to find *any* good music.

What tops the charts has nothing to do with the masses "finding" it. They are spoonfed what major label execs and other major power players want them to hear, which means "safe" music that does not offend anyone so as to have the largest possible audience.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I don't know what this means if it doesn't mean there's more diversity and progression in mainstream chart-toppers than indie rock:

quote:

At the very least it doesn't sound anything like Animal Collective, and it sure does evolve a hell of a lot faster than what tops the standard Pitchfork lists month after month.

I believe, now here I go speaking for him again (but I feel I understand him), that he is saying that the mainstream goes through "cycles" quickly. With an indie band you'll still here a band saturated in DNA or Pavement... the pop charts try and stay "fresh," often-times doing their best to hide any, if any, influences.

I also take it that he doesn't like Animal Collective; oh well. I love them but that's his personal preference.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
What tops the charts has nothing to do with the masses "finding" it. They are spoonfed what major label execs and other major power players want them to hear, which means "safe" music that does not offend anyone so as to have the largest possible audience.

This just isn't true. The music industry is littered with the corpses of would-be pop stars with tons of promotion (cash) put behind them who just couldn't make it. The big guys put out tons of records every month and few of them get anywhere near the top of the charts. More major-label machines fail than succeed.

I can understand that some people find it offensive that these "artists" are getting credit for music they frequently, but not always, have little to do with. And as someone who pretends to be an amateur musician myself I sympathize with that. But the truth is that there are real musicians and songwriters and composers and producers making this stuff. And some of these guys are extraordinarily talented. Why can't this be possible? Why is music the only field where guys working it as a job can't happen to make great art? Nobody bitches about Dickens getting paid by the word, or Shakespeare just putting out what the masses would like. The truth is that these guys have more in common with undisputed greats like Handel, churning out endless amounts of music on commission, than anyone would like to admit. I really wish we could get away from this idea, very recent historically, that good music always has to be from the soul, not for profit, a window into the mind, whatever. There are a lot of people who do that, and they're all my favorites, too. But there's room for other sorts of things. Nobody has a problem in principle with recognizing the craft in both There Will Be Blood and Transformers or Superbad. I'm not sure why it's so hard to imagine doing the same with Kelly Clarkson and Melt-Banana. I like balance.

What's wrong with safe, anyway? I mean, it's been a few years since I've heard a contemporary album as good as Carole King's Tapestry. I'm not sure why it's necessary to be challenged by every single thing you listen to.

In any case, this debate will restart itself once again in 20 or 30 years. Nobody's embarrassed to like Elvis or the Monkees or Cat Stevens or ABBA anymore. Even Madonna and Kylie Minogue are becoming acceptable in hipster circles. Some of the stuff on the charts will stand the test of time, most of it won't, but that's true for indie rock, too. I'd like to think I'll end up on the right side of history with my own personal likes and dislikes, but we'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:
I believe, now here I go speaking for him again (but I feel I understand him), that he is saying that the mainstream goes through "cycles" quickly. With an indie band you'll still here a band saturated in DNA or Pavement... the pop charts try and stay "fresh," often-times doing their best to hide any, if any, influences.

I also take it that he doesn't like Animal Collective; oh well. I love them but that's his personal preference.

You're right on the money once again. Except that I don't have anything against Animal Collective, I just used them as an example because sans mentioned them as being characteristic of the sound he wanted to get away from.

Maybe I should say that I never listen to the radio, I don't watch much TV, and I don't go to clubs. When I decide I want to check some pop music out, I'm approaching it totally fresh. That might explain why I don't find it as annoying as you guys do. I look at the charts once in a while and then see what the few respectable reviewers who cover that kind of stuff have to say. If it sounds like something I might like, I listen on Youtube or MySpace.

Anyone with a melt-banana mention gets my support!

But I also rarely get around stuff that's on the charts. But, whenever I visit old friends I can always find something on the mainstream rap stations I enjoy.. I think that mainstream rap appeals to me so much because it is so to the point and not afraid to be exactly what it's expected to be. For me it's a vacation of sorts.

quote:

I believe, now here I go speaking for him again (but I feel I understand him), that he is saying that the mainstream goes through "cycles" quickly. With an indie band you'll still here a band saturated in DNA or Pavement... the pop charts try and stay "fresh," often-times doing their best to hide any, if any, influences.

Yeah, I guess that that's the problem I'm dealing with. I feel like I keep hearing all of the same influences in new music. Now I understand that almost everything is somewhat derivative. But it seems like everytime I turn around I hear another post-punk, americana or synth pop group coming around. Of course there's a precedant for basically any album that comes out these days, but I'm looking for something that's at least influenced by something else.

Concerning electronic music: I have checked out some of this, but I haven't been very interested. Any particular suggestions?

quote:

Posted by JustSomeIdiot:

The Minutemen - Double Nickels On The Dime

I'm not sure if you're recommending this to me, or you're saying it's your "best new to you" music. Either way, I like this album quite a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by odysseyandoracle:
What's wrong with safe, anyway? I mean, it's been a few years since I've heard a contemporary album as good as Carole King's Tapestry. I'm not sure why it's necessary to be challenged by every single thing you listen to.

Nothing, really. I don't listen to much "challenging" music actually; I just think that virtually all mainstream music blows. I mean, it just all sounds like shit to me. The only stuff I can enjoy even in the least is some of the pop-punk, which I understand to be the most reviled of all mainstream music.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Nothing, really. I don't listen to much "challenging" music actually; I just think that virtually all mainstream music blows. I mean, it just all sounds like shit to me. The only stuff I can enjoy even in the least is some of the pop-punk, which I understand to be the most reviled of all mainstream music.

A lot of pop-punk kicks ass; it's just hard to get around the incredibly annoying vocal styles and musical monotony of most of the bands. But luckily they usually put out short LPs.

I guess it depends how we're defining the mainstream. A lot of the mainstream music I love the most isn't terribly popular - e.g., Rachel Stevens or Amerie. I tend to find myself more into bubblegum and R&B than the kind of pseudo-hip-hop chanting that often passes for pop these days - e.g., Fergie. I think a lot of people here would like, say, Mary J. Blige if they really listened to her music.

The thing that bothers me the most is when people will turn their noses up at someone like Britney Spears while having no problem with loving Kylie, due to her being Pitchfork-approved. There's no doubt that there's a substantial difference between the two, I'm not equating them, but it's one of degree, not kind. Kylie has little more to do with her music than Spears does with her own. But now I'm getting quite off topic.

Just let me clarify a bit what I meant: I'm by no means bored with music right now. I'm just as excited by it, and maybe more so, then I've ever been. It's not really that kind of phase. I'm just a bit bored with what's going on today. I was just looking for some recommendations like "hey, here's this band that doesn't sound like most stuff that's going around these days." I'm not picky at all what they sound like. I'm just looking for something that's not pulling from all of the prominent influences everyone's using today. It might even be terrible, but at least it'd be at least, ya know...intriquing. I'm the kind of guy who can can see the charm in a mess as long it's shooting for something. It's just that the whole Vampire Weekend, Fleet Foxes or DFA sound is really boring me right now.

You said you haven't been very interested in much electronic music...are you familiar with Fennesz? The best I can do to describe his stuff briefly is glitchy ambient pop noise, kind of like an instrumental My Bloody Valentine taken to its logical conclusion. Rich, strange, and catchy. He's very unique; I'm sure someone else here can come up with a better description.

quote:

Originally posted by sans_success:
Just let me clarify a bit what I meant: I'm by no means bored with music right now. I'm just as excited by it, and maybe more so, then I've ever been. It's not really that kind of phase. I'm just a bit bored with what's going on today. I was just looking for some recommendations like "hey, here's this band that doesn't sound like most stuff that's going around these days." I'm not picky at all what they sound like. I'm just looking for something that's not pulling from all of the prominent influences everyone's using today. It might even be terrible, but at least it'd be at least, ya know...intriquing. I'm the kind of guy who can can see the charm in a mess as long it's shooting for something. It's just that the whole Vampire Weekend, Fleet Foxes or DFA sound is really boring me right now.

Like consumer electronics (does anyone remember when a PDA and cell phone were actually two separate devices?), music is undergoing a convergence phenomenon. The reason you're hearing similar influences all around is because that's what is happening. I don't care whether it's indie, electronic, or even metal, a lot of these artists are converging on the same post-whatever-you-wanna-callit sound. Or maybe there's a few different sounds, but they are each an attractor - to make a mathematical argument. It's like music can be either stable or unstable, and all these artists are converging upon the stable configurations in space. Maybe what you are looking for is instability?

quote:

Originally posted by sans_success:
Just let me clarify a bit what I meant: I'm by no means bored with music right now. I'm just as excited by it, and maybe more so, then I've ever been. It's not really that kind of phase. I'm just a bit bored with what's going on today. I was just looking for some recommendations like "hey, here's this band that doesn't sound like most stuff that's going around these days." I'm not picky at all what they sound like. I'm just looking for something that's not pulling from all of the prominent influences everyone's using today. It might even be terrible, but at least it'd be at least, ya know...intriquing. I'm the kind of guy who can can see the charm in a mess as long it's shooting for something. It's just that the whole Vampire Weekend, Fleet Foxes or DFA sound is really boring me right now.

I've been really digging these five songs. Unlike anything I've ever heard before. I heard of them from the pitchfork article interviewing the guy from El Guicho. Pretty exciting stuff imo.

Thanks Vypa. That is pretty interesting, especially the first track. Pretty good, too.

I've gotten really into Yeasayer - All Hour Cymbals. I'm surprised it didn't do better on the year-end lists...

quote:

I've been really digging these five songs. Unlike anything I've ever heard before. I heard of them from the pitchfork article interviewing the guy from El Guicho. Pretty exciting stuff imo.

I've been listening to High Places quite a bit since you mentioned this, Vypa. I like it. Good recommendation.