 Thursday
Advance word is that the Grauniad isn't publishing my letter about their immensely silly 'Never Mind the Britpop' article [see below]; not that it's some great historical epistle about one of the solemn topics of the day, but here it is, anyway:
I, too, have always been suspicious of wrinkly older
critics who declare the "death of rock/pop" and posit
irretrievably superior bygone eras - so I have some
sympathy for Natalie Hanman's rhetorical defence of
the current music scene [Comment 8.2.06]. That said,
critics are supposed to provide context and comparison
and know their history. Henman's "onslaught of
indie-rock bands that are selling out shows, storming
up the charts and creating a golden age of music" is a
fond, but rather myopic notion, delivered in the
doubt-free syntax of excitable PR. What about context,
what about comparison? This would seem especially
necessary in a 'scene' which is 98.9% laddishly
homogenous, skinny-white-boy riffy-rock.
Bloc Party and Kaiser Chiefs sound disturbingly
reminiscent of post-punk third-raters like The Members
and The Ruts; Franz Ferdinand are more an I-Spy Our
New Wave References game than a real and original
band; while Babyshambles represent the triumph of
self-mythologisation over smeary, half-cocked
substance.
I’ll reserve judgement on The Artic Monkeys
(partly, yes, because I'm old and wrinkly and not the
most excitable of chaps these days); but I suspect that
in years to come they’ll be remembered as much for the
*manner* of their irruptive
underground->mainstream/internet->chart crossover, as
for a music which is 25% youthful sizzle to 75%
formulaic boilerplate and standard teen-boy moan.
Where is any hint of strangeness, of over-reaching
ambition, of at least SOME departure from post-Oasis
post-Strokes norms?
There: that patronising enough?
posted by Ian 2/09/2006 07:03:00 PM
|
THE PILL BOX 
