Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Myspace or, is pop now eating itself?

Page: (1)2 3

foolish fat finger

00:19 / 05.06.06

all the new music on myspace... is it the death of cool? in my day, you could play the 'cool' game by being into a more obscure band than anyone else "oh, of course I've heard the Midget Mannikins, but have you heard Badger Alert yet?!"

now it seems incredibly easy to be into some band no-one has ever heard of 'I really dig the Pompous Pixies, a Ukrainian band playing Abba covers in a drill n' bass style' (they have 2 friends on myspace, and one of them is Tom) is this the end, or will it be usurped like all other music revolutions...? I don't know, I just thought it was an interesting topic for convo...

also, I watched top of the pops tonite for the first time this century... is it just me, or is it all just fake bands playing fake music? has it always been like that, and I'm too dumb to notice? the Streets were good, and they came across as 'authentic', and Leanne Rimes came across as authentic, if dull, but the rest of it... singing haircuts... or am I just an old git?

01:20 / 05.06.06

Well, it is to say the least odd that your main concern here seems to be how this might ruin some holy hierarchy of The Cool.

Otherwise, as to MySpace, and just how easy it is to constantly come upon music these days, it's something that's jumped into my head a few times recently - just how much of the good stuff can I get when there seems to be so fucking much 'round? And I gotta say, I'm not too good at screening out what isn't of interest, so I basically end up limiting the means by which I find music. Which has its portion of good and bad, I suppose.

Still. Y'know. One battles on, yada yada. Beats me.

01:58 / 05.06.06

All hail the end of cool

04:15 / 05.06.06

Hm.

Funny, I always feel like there's too much music everytime I get another issue of the Wire.

If mentioning an obscure band/artist helps the person feel better about themselves, I wouldn't say it's too much of a problem. Of course, this is taking into consideration that they eventually grow up and realize that the band they once bragged about liking is a steaming fountain of shit.

All Acting Regiment

06:10 / 05.06.06

Top of the pops has always been miming, Waggles. You're right to say that The Streets are more fun than most of the indie bands of the moment.

is there just too much music available now?

There Is Never Too Much Music. Anyone who says there is = knobhead, in one form or another. Sorry. Not very well thought through, but true somehow.

Not quite sure what your question is really. Is Myspace "the end"? Of what? Pop music? Well, no, of course not- it's just a fairly average (in terms of efficiency/how well designed it is) social networking site that a lot of bands have started using. I'd say it's less of a new phenomenon than the advent of MP3s, certainly. Bands have had websites with MP3s and links to their mate's websites for ages. Myspace probably makes this system a little bit easier.

A lot of people get silly about myspace, both those for and against it. See insults such as "Myspace band" etc. While I'm not about to start slagging something off that doesn't seem to me to be an actively evil influence, it does strike me that aside from big names cashing in there don't seem to be many genres represented on myspace outside of indie/emo/whatever we're calling sanctimonious middle class white people with guitars these days. I'd loved to be proved wrong, though.

I beleive that as more people get into downloading, and sales of actual CDs go down (as they should, as CDs have been overpriced for ages and most of that money goes to the execs anyhow) the live circuit is really picking up again. All for the better, I'd say.

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:34 / 05.06.06

is it just me, or is it all just fake bands playing fake music?

How do you tell the difference between a fake band and a real one?

08:39 / 05.06.06

I’m not sure I see what the problem is. More access to more music is good, right? Myspace has some cringeworthy apects but I don’t think its music functionality is amongst them.

09:43 / 05.06.06

the Streets were good, and they came across as 'authentic'

Shudder.

11:05 / 05.06.06

There's loads of genres on myspace. Loads of house people have myspace pages, and some of the dubstep people have pages there too - for dubstep it helps promo a lot, especially to the US. Lots of grime up there too. There is actually some good music there - though I find the artists through genre-based fora rather than myspace itself.

Despite the hype, I don't think there have actually been any artists to have been broken principally via myspace. For example, it's factually incorrect to say that the arctic monkeys got promoted via myspace - last I heard they still don't have their own page there, just a fan site, and they had management, Domino deal, national tours etc in place long before they had myspace exposure.

However, I'm told that it's a shit hot dating forum

.

foolish fat finger

12:14 / 05.06.06

Well, it is to say the least odd that your main concern here seems to be how this might ruin some holy hierarchy of The Cool.
not really, Fumo... it's just interesting to me. my point is that now anyone can claim to be cool by being into a more obscure band- who are the arbitrators*? maybe that is why some people are writing off the scene as 'a myspace band', as Legba says (as if music is somehow defined by where you got it from- urgh- a 'hmv band'!) because it is a threat to established notions of cool. or something. stop me if I start to sound like a twit...

how do you tell the difference between a fake band and a real one?
I don't know, top spec... but a 28 year old man dressed up like an emo teen,(lostprophets) and singing about standing on a rooftop screaming, well, I'd say that was a good indication... nice hair though.

(I think my position is, I am getting old, and the world is leaving me behind... can't keep up. I guess I'll just sit in my room with my treasured Belle and Sebastian records and feel wistful... sigh...)

*the arbitrators are a very fine punk-pop three-piece from Huddersfield...

12:22 / 05.06.06

my point is that now anyone can claim to be cool by being into a more obscure band- who are the arbitrators?

The flaw in your premise is that surely the only people who genuinely think that you acquire "coolness" for being into more obscure bands than anyone else - are despicable haircut scum who deserve to be bludgeoned to death? No?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:24 / 05.06.06

I don't agree that there can be too much good music. I do, however, miss the days when finding it was difficult, and the quest was all part of the fun- the sense of achievement of finding that Nurse With Wound album or rare Strawberry Switchblade single at a record fair was lovely.

On balance, though, I think I'd rather hear the music. And I'm sure the small typeface in Record Collector contributed to my shit eyesight.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:27 / 05.06.06

Your argument seems pretty confused to me, waggling naughty finger - it started off being about three or four separate things: a specific website; a more general increase in avenues for music to be heard thanks to technology; the alleged tendency for people to try to seem "cool" by talking about "obscure" bands; a largely unconnected moan about how modern fake bands, blah blah Sandi Thomcakes.

my point is that now anyone can claim to be cool by being into a more obscure band

Surely they always could? And in fact, surely the increasing ease with which musicians can get their music heard via the internet means that it is less easy to claim to be into an obscure band, since as soon as you do that anyone who has the internet can simply look that band up - whereas in the past, one could easily claim to be into a band that simply did not exist, and it would be a lot harder for anyone to prove otherwise.

who are the arbitrators*?

Why do we need arbitrators? There are no arbitrators - there never have been, not ones with any real authority anyway. Why would you need someone - what, a music journalist or something? - to tell you what is and isn't cool or credible or "real" or "fake"?

I don't know, top spec... but a 28 year old man dressed up like an emo teen,(lostprophets) and singing about standing on a rooftop screaming, well, I'd say that was a good indication... nice hair though.

A good indication of what? Spit it out, man. I'm 28 myself, and wonder how you think people my age "ought" to dress. Lostprophets aren't my bag but as far as I'm aware they are comprised of actual "real" human beings (though if they didn't, I might be more into them), so again, what makes them "fake"? Your reference to their lyrical content is confusing - does a band have to sing about things they demonstrably really do in order to be "real"? 'Cos that narrows down the field a lot...

foolish fat finger

13:36 / 05.06.06

The flaw in your premise is that surely the only people who
genuinely think that you acquire "coolness" for being into more
obscure bands than anyone else - are despicable haircut scum who
deserve to be bludgeoned to death? No?

death's too good for them...

I sort of agree with you stoaty, that the finding of stuff was part of
the enjoyment, like hunting out a rare Glove single at the flea
market... now it's a bit like having Christmas every day, for me-
loses some kind of mystery maybe.

I am getting a thought about 'filters'- traditionally the music
industry acts as a filter for music to the public, but this
temporarily breaks down, and you get the new thing coming thru, a bit
like turning a compost heap over, so you get punk, or the download
revolution. punk is like a particularly fresh bit of loam coming to
the surface, which then provides plenty of nutrients for the soil, to
grow exotic strains like Siouxsie and the Banshees, P.I.L., and the
Buzzcocks.

my feeling about myspace is that the record companies are probably
desperately trying to control the way the new system works- you can't
have 'unfiltered' music going direct to the listeners... in this
sense, record companies are like a really nasty bindweed, that you
just can't get rid of, no matter how many times you pull it up, and
that strangle other plants and steal as many nutrients from fresh
loams as they can.

this is of course all terribly obvious...

foolish fat finger

13:44 / 05.06.06

top spec flyboy, I don't really have a position as such, or an arguament. I just find the situation interesting. I am interested in other people's opinions.

Why do we need arbitrators? There are no arbitrators - there never have been, not ones with any real authority anyway. Why would you need someone - what, a music journalist or something? - to tell you what is and isn't cool or credible or "real" or "fake"?

don't know sir, sorry sir.

as to how you should dress, well, get your haircut for a start. and tuck your shirt in. straighten up and fly right, flyboy!
(I am not trying to piss you off- but how do I know how you should dress? I'm not Trinny and Susannah... wear what you feel happy in...)

foolish fat finger

13:46 / 05.06.06

I think this thread just ate itself...!

13:49 / 05.06.06

Do you mean "too much music" in terms of over-saturation? If so, I agree, especially in the sense that so many bands seem to pursue music for completely illegitimate reasons these days. It often seems like bands exist purely because they are attracted to the idea and cultural attachment of being in a band, as opposed to an actual desire to create music itself.

The NME has plenty of ammunition for this cause.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:59 / 05.06.06

Right. waggling, when you said "stop me if I start to sound like a twit", was that an official request for moderation? Because at the moment you're posting things, then when I reply to them you're only response seems to be in the form of a non-sequitor.

Let's just run through this again. I asked:

how do you tell the difference between a fake band and a real one?

And you said:

I don't know, top spec... but a 28 year old man dressed up like an emo teen,(lostprophets) and singing about standing on a rooftop screaming, well, I'd say that was a good indication...

Which is why I then said:

I'm 28 myself, and wonder how you think people my age "ought" to dress.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. As far as I can tell you were saying that a 28 year-old musician dressing like an "emo teen" is a reasonably reliable indication that his band is "fake". So I am asking you, how should he be dressing - what clothes would he have to wear in order to be "real"? If you're not Trinny and Susannah, and don't know how I should dress, how do you know how the singer from Lostprophets should dress in order not to be "fake"? How do you know that he is not already wearing what he feels happy in?

foolish fat finger

14:39 / 05.06.06

I don't really know. I am making a purely superficial value judgement, that has no objective truth. for all I know, the guy could be totally real with his sartorial choices. I don't really care. I was making a lighthearted observation of a fairly inconsquential matter (a singer's choice of dress on a pop show) it was intended as a throwaway.

it's not about how I think someone ought to dress, just an observation that something seems a bit of a sham. like, if I thought someone was lying to me, I would hope that they told me the truth instead; that doesn't mean I think I know what they should be talking about, y'know?

y'know, to quote Jarvis (or Darren Spooner) 'Be real'. but then, if I want authenticity, I probably shouldn't be watching pop shows... maybe read a bit of Dostoevsky instead...

as for lostprophets, the whole band looked (to me) like a big fat studio produced vidal sassoon baseball-booted skinny tie fake... but then, what do I know? it's 4 tha kids...

if I sounded flippant, it is because I don't have an answer to your questions.

foolish fat finger

20:48 / 05.06.06

Right. waggling, when you said "stop me if I start to sound like a twit", was that an official request for moderation? Because at the moment you're posting things, then when I reply to them you're only response seems to be in the form of a non-sequitor.

Ok, I experienced that as some kind of threat- like 'answer my questions or I will delete your post'. I do not want to answer your questions. I find them aggressive, and also not interesting for me to answer. if there's one thing I have tried to make clear on this thread, it is that I don't have any answers. I have a few ideas, and I am interested in other people's ideas on the same subject. but I do not have an 'arguament' as you put it.

you seem to be bothered, like because I am making fun of a pop-star who is the same age as you, I am somehow picking on you, and thinking you should maybe dress different? that wasn't what I was saying.

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:10 / 05.06.06

No. Let me make this as clear as I possibly can: this is a discussion forum. If you start a thread and say "is it just me, or is it all just fake bands playing fake music?", a fairly sweeping, strong statement, you will have to be prepared for someone disagreeing with you or, as I did, asking you to explain what you mean. If your explanation is limited to saying that a singer in one band dresses like an emo teen, then it is perfectly reasonable for someone to ask you how musicians should dress instead in order to be real, or how you know that dressing like an emo teen is not "real" to them. If these kind of questions are too "aggressive" for you, then... well, I don't know what to suggest.

I don't actually intend to take any kind of moderation action, no - apologies for that poor attempt at humour.

foolish fat finger

21:36 / 05.06.06

I don't actually intend to take any kind of moderation action, no - apologies for that poor attempt at humour.

alright mate, well, it's a relief you're not gonna moderate my ass out of existence...!

er, well, I don't have a strong feeling about totp, which is why I posted in the form of a question... clearly it's not all fake stuff, and probably, I am not really the target audience... I was thinking about it today tho... I don't mind 'fake' looking bands, but music that just seems to be pandering to a certain audience, without trying to convey genuine emotion, well, I hate that. cos music is sacred. that was my thought today...

how should musicians dress to be real- as themselves I guess. not as a third rate franz ferdinand copy... but you did seem to feel that I wanted to tell you how to dress in order to be real... which I don't.

I think a lot of humour is lost on the net. I am not entirely serious in my posts, and also I didn't realise you were making a joke about the moderating... I mean, it doesn't take Derrida to comment that totp is somewhat shallow...! also I was gonna post something like 'well, what are you wearing- are you dressing up like an emo teen?' y'know, just kiddin yer, but I thought you might think I was gettin at yer. but it's just playful, y'know?
however, if you do want me to tell yer how to dress, that's fine, send me a snap, and I'll give yer all me best fashion tips... ha ha! said from a man who wears tramp shoes... mind you, tramp shoes are definitely gonna be this summer's big thing...

alright, peace man- wnf

Regrettable Juvenilia

21:48 / 05.06.06

how should musicians dress to be real- as themselves I guess. not as a third rate franz ferdinand copy... but you did seem to feel that I wanted to tell you how to dress in order to be real... which I don't.

Look, forget about the "I'm 28, how should I dress?" bit, okay? It was an attempt to make a point which obviously went wildly awry. I know how don't want to tell me how to dress in order to be real. However, you seem to think that one can tell whether a band is "real" or not on the basis of how they dress. I am interested in your opinions and would like to know more about them and understand them better. But you're not helping me understand them by saying that dressing to be real = dressing "as themselves". That's entirely circular. Being yourself is being real, being real is being yourself. Yes, but how does one tell?

Equally, when you talk about music that's just trying to pander to a certain audience, we might both agree that we hate that. But we might be thinking of very different people/things, and until you go into a little more detail, I don't know who or what you mean.

I mean, it doesn't take Derrida to comment that totp is somewhat shallow...!

Does this mean "everyone knows that Top of the Pops is shallow, let's not bother questioning that assumption"? I've found it best to beware of 'common sense' and received wisdom...

foolish fat finger

22:21 / 05.06.06

I think I am on fairly solid ground when I say that top of the pops is shallow... but I am open to persuasion... in fact if anyone can conclusively prove to me that totp is 'deep', I'll send them a gold brick. (disclaimer- obviously not a brick that is made of gold, just an ordinary housebrick covered in gold carspray...)

I liked what George Michael once said; 'part of my job is to not look like anyone else'. I think that's true for pop stars- they should have their own image. not copy someone else. I do think it is part of the job.

how does one tell if someone is 'authentic'? I don't know. I go on gut feeling, but I am sometimes wrong... not too often tho. plus, of course it is confused by if you like the artist. for instance, I don't especially dig Lee Scratch Perry, but he's the real deal, I am sure of that. he's a one-off, no doubt.

I suppose the whole pop musician image is based on artifice and fantasy, for the most part. even if it is a fantasy of 'realness'.

I am a bit confused here, because I don't claim to know what musician should dress/sound like, and even if I did, so what?! but I do know I judge each artist or song on whether they 'mean it, maaaaaan', and quite a bit of the stuff I hear nowadays sounds like total bollocks.

ok, what I felt was real lately- 'crazy' by Gnarls Barkely. that's the biz. it's honest. what I felt was bollocks- 'fill my little world' by the Feeling- complete trite crap...

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:08 / 05.06.06

Dude, Gnarls Barkley isn't even a person. It's a made-up person. That's really fake

Professor Silly

23:10 / 05.06.06

how should a band dress? the way they feel most comfortable (both in terms of projecting confidence as well as artistic expression). I think what finger might be noticing is a lack of comfort in said dress--a feeling that a "stylist" told someone of questionable talent how to "look cool." Take Gwen Stefani for instance--like or dislike her music, she exudes confidence in her fashion choices. Ditto Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison etc. I think most people can tell the difference between a musician and someone "dressed" like a musician, or any other profession for that matter (except actors of course--their job is to look confident within any role, including the role of coward).

As far a MySpace goes...it has proved very useful to my band. We'll book a show, then find other local acts that we most want to play with. Then when they book a show, they return the favor. All of these bands existed before MySpace did, but the site allowed us to form a scene of sorts...a Denver Art Rock Collective if you will, of interesting psychedelic bands that don't fit in amongst the metalheads or the fake hippies up in Boulder (I say that with tongue firmly in cheek).

Another interesting thing I've noticed: because I have an extensive list of musical influences listed on my personal page I get friend requests from strange and interesting bands from around the world. Most of them have something unique to express, and the few duds out there are easily ignored. Of course my list doesn't include much in the way of popular groups, so only the wierdos that are interested in the same stuff ever find me--and that's the way I'd like to keep it thankyouverymuch.

Finally I find it very useful when cross-promoting: MySpace allows those that see my band locally to contact me for tattoos, and vice versa. As a band we can hand out buttons with the bandname on it, they can search for us through MySpace and find out when we're playing again. I can handout the same buttons to tattoo clients and they can hear several of our songs for free. Everybody wins!

It has its drawbacks, like pushy webcam girls...but all in all I find it very useful.

All Acting Regiment

06:47 / 06.06.06

Waggs, if I can assume that the bands you're showing dissatisfaction with are generally on the side of white indie bands (you say Franz Ferdinand copies) and your dissatisfaction comes from the fact that they seem to be very well dressed and wilfully shallow, might I suggest that that's kind of the point of the scene at the moment, has been since around (Fly, help me?) the Strokes. It's about hedonism and discos these days, referencing Factory (both NY and Manchester incarnations) and Studio 54.

You have to remember that this can be read 100% optimistically, as an antidote to the drab Oasis/Travis/Coldplay deal, and all the presumptions of "authenticity" over fun (however nice the latter's music might or might not have been it was all very sedate).

The spectre of "The nasty cool kids who don't care about revolutions and want to go to parties" is cropping up here, I think- the idea that music that isn't s-e-r-i-o-u-s is throway bread and circusses. Now that surely doesn't hold up- a lot of these (male) indie bands are outrageously camp and narcissistic- surely that's a challenge to convention, as it kicks sand in the face of the "bloke" males of Oasis &c?

Now, that's still a problematic way of looking at it, because granted you've still got some indie bands and their fans who see this hedonism as being different and progressive and the rest of pop hedonism as degenerate, but seriously, what would you rather have- loads of noise and sexy costumes or some berk with knotted brow and an acoustic guitar?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:59 / 06.06.06

To cut it down to basics, since when were "shallow" and "authentic" mutually exclusive? Look at the Ramones. Nobody's saying they weren't "real". Nobody's saying they were "deep", either.

Regrettable Juvenilia

07:21 / 06.06.06

even if I did, so what?!

As I keep saying: it's a discussion. Forum. So people are going to want to discuss your opinions. If you're not even sure what your opinions are and/or discard* them defensively every time they're questioned, this is not going to be a very productive use of anyone's time.

*The weird thing is you're not even doing that, as far as I can tell: you keep saying that you don't really think these things, while constantly reiterating them, but never explaining them.

08:06 / 06.06.06

what would you rather have- loads of noise and sexy costumes or some berk with knotted brow and an acoustic guitar?
Both please.

Mmmmmm, Sugababes. Or Slade!

Mmmmmm, Nick Drake.

foolish fat finger

14:00 / 06.06.06

Dude, Gnarls Barkley isn't even a person. It's a made-up person. That's really fake
shit, really? Next you’ll be telling me that Gorillaz aren’t real people…

I am with professor silly. He puts it better than me; “a feeling that a "stylist" told someone of questionable talent how to "look cool."

I guess if I can narrow down what bothers me it is trying to be like someone else, because what the other person does sells. Trying to be like someone else because you are influenced by them, because you love what they do, that’s fine, by me. But I don’t like careerists or copyists. And I do think you can tell, although I couldn’t say how…

In terms of ‘realness’, I guess the whole issue is quite complex.

even if I did, so what?!

As I keep saying: it's a discussion. Forum. So people are going to want to discuss your opinions. If you're not even sure what your opinions are and/or discard* them defensively every time they're questioned, this is not going to be a very productive use of anyone's time.
I think this discussion thread is going fine. I finding out some useful stuff, and it is interesting reading different opinions.

What I meant by ‘even if I did, so what?’- I somehow doubt the arctic monkeys will be reading this thread for style tips from the finger, y’know?

I don’t personally feel I have a strong stance that I need to defend in relation to this topic. So I feel it would be daft to try. I would feel pretty stupid trying to set myself up as the arbiter of what is real and what isn’t, y’know?
Notions of ‘real’ and ‘fake’ are actually quite interesting, and maybe would be worth discussing on their own terms in another thread…

To cut it down to basics, since when were "shallow" and "authentic" mutually exclusive? Look at the Ramones. Nobody's saying they weren't "real". Nobody's saying they were "deep", either.

Well quite. That’s a good point, stoatie. I was going to make that point with ‘barbie girl’ by Aqua, but probably yrs is the better example…maybe slightly less contentious…

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:06 / 06.06.06

In terms of ‘realness’, I guess the whole issue is quite complex.

Too complex, perhaps, to rely on vague "feelings" that apparently can't be explained or withstand questioning. Do you get these feelings in your water, or your bones?

14:16 / 06.06.06

it's a good thread but i don't think age can be taken into consideration as a proof or whether something is real or fake.

foolish fat finger

14:43 / 06.06.06

surely feelings are unquantifiable, flyboy, I never claimed otherwise, or that my feelings are more valid than anyone else's.

you are trying to make me sound like an old lady with the ‘in your bones’ comment. I see you wish to put me down. That’s fine. I hope you feel better now; you got in a good insult! Well done!

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:03 / 06.06.06

Feelings may be unquantifiable, but what you're describing is not a feeling. It's a conclusion - that band x is fake, or that bands (x, y, z) are fake, or that people who dress like a are fake. There's a difference between "I feel sad", whhich expresses a feeling, and "I feel that you are feeling sad", which is a statement of what you think to be the case. Compare "I think you are feeling sad" or "I believe that you are feeling sad".

In this case, I think that Flyboy was not seeking to make you sound like an old woman, but rather a mystic - somebody who described their conclusions as arrived at through an inexplicable, mystical process rather than a process of thought. As such, I believe that the intention you are ascribing is as incorrect as your earlier belief that you were being threatened with sensorship. I conclude that you might be better advised to look at some of the questions around how you are arriving at your own statements rather than speculating as to the motivations of others.

For example, you described Gnarls B as being "honest" - and by extension presumably "real" - despite Gnarls B being a confection - a pseudonymous fake artist behind which is operating Cee-Lo Brown and Danger Mouse. Your response to this was flippant, but in what sense is Gnarls Barkley more "real" than Gorrilaz? Or is your point that, despite being cartoon characters, Gorillaz are "real", because... because why? Because the clothes that are drawn onto them were chosen by their creator, Jamie Hewlett, rather than by a stylist?

To turn full circle, it may be interesting to note that Gnarls Barklay's first live appearance was sponsored by MySpace.com.

Page: (1)2 3