I'm going to come out and admit it: I do, on occasion, read Spin Magazine. I don't have a problem, I can stop at any time, but it does happen.
Ages ago, I picked up a copy of Spin magazine, because of it's nice little review of Arcade Fire's newest gem, Neon Bible, and an interview with Iggy Pop, whom, I've realized, is fantastic to read about (See Paste, March 2007). Whilst thumbing through it's pages, and sneering at Pete Wentz (and feeling saddened by our mutual respect for Refused's The Shape Of Punk To Come), I came across a reader's poll, of the best and worst of 2006. My Chemical Romance's surprise masterwork The Black Parade ranked as the best and worst of the year, while the band also scored best and worst of the year. But then, opposite that page, I find myself at staring at a rock hero if there ever was one: Thom Yorke. The Radiohead lead singer had been named, by the pop-rock rag of the millenia, the solo artist of 2006.
Well, BULLY for you, Mr. Yorke!
But one thing still confuses me: When did Spin readers wise up? The cover of the issue that I picked up today is one of several I've come across in recent days with Fall Out Boy as the cover band, and last month's was My Chemical Romance. When the hell did they start digging Yorke's strange lyrics and, most importantly, the overall catchy beats on his solo album, The Eraser?
My friends, we live in a strange world. Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust, and we now fellate bands that all sound the same (Paging Mr. Wentz and Mr. Urie...), but we neglect artists who put their blood, sweat, tears, and talent (oh, the talent!) into decent records. Rolling Stone was once a respectable source of music news, but they took the last train for the coast and have devoted a great lot of black-and-white to faux-punk rockers Green Day and Fall Out Boy (who also made cover this month). Sure, decent reviewers still give a nice bit of time to great artists (TV On The Radio's brilliant 2006 release Return To Cookie Mountain was one of the few albums I've never heard a bad word about, and likewise for the afore mentioned Neon Bible, which was the main review for the Spin issue that prompted this post). But why in hell's name are bands like Panic! At The Disco so well-liked?
I know, I'm rambling a bit. What I say about these bands is spiteful, hurtful to some, and probably sounds downright bitter to most. Most people would ask if I dislike these bands because I don't like their music, or because they're popular? Paying attention to my music history, the latter seems more likely, because I stopped liking Fall Out Boy after they got popular. But, the question is: is it popularity that makes people stop (or start, in most cases) liking the music, or is the popularity making artists produce music for the fans, rather than for themselves?
Am I crazy for starting to dislike bands once they become popular? Could it be that people ruin these bands for me? Could it be that fandom clouds the judgment of the artists, and leads them to do things to keep a fan-base?
My friends, we live in a strange world. Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust, and we now fellate bands that all sound the same (Paging Mr. Wentz and Mr. Urie...), but we neglect artists who put their blood, sweat, tears, and talent (oh, the talent!) into decent records. Rolling Stone was once a respectable source of music news, but they took the last train for the coast and have devoted a great lot of black-and-white to faux-punk rockers Green Day and Fall Out Boy (who also made cover this month). Sure, decent reviewers still give a nice bit of time to great artists (TV On The Radio's brilliant 2006 release Return To Cookie Mountain was one of the few albums I've never heard a bad word about, and likewise for the afore mentioned Neon Bible, which was the main review for the Spin issue that prompted this post). But why in hell's name are bands like Panic! At The Disco so well-liked?
I know, I'm rambling a bit. What I say about these bands is spiteful, hurtful to some, and probably sounds downright bitter to most. Most people would ask if I dislike these bands because I don't like their music, or because they're popular? Paying attention to my music history, the latter seems more likely, because I stopped liking Fall Out Boy after they got popular. But, the question is: is it popularity that makes people stop (or start, in most cases) liking the music, or is the popularity making artists produce music for the fans, rather than for themselves?
Am I crazy for starting to dislike bands once they become popular? Could it be that people ruin these bands for me? Could it be that fandom clouds the judgment of the artists, and leads them to do things to keep a fan-base?
1 comment:
I like this blog :-)
Post a Comment