# Overrated or is it just me?... I just ain't hearin' it



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Thought I'd share some slow day ramblings from inside my head...

At this time of year you see all kinds of lists coming out, you know, "The best of the year" type lists. I happened upon one such list of album "must haves" and it reminded me of a couple recent bands who are getting a lot of acclaim but for reasons that escape me.

Two groups immediately come to mind for me are Arcade Fire and Kings of Leon.

This thread isn't meant to slag either band. I'm sure they're talented but for the life of me I don't see why they stand out amongst their peers. In both cases nothing in their music really stands out to me with the possible exception of Arcade Fire's singer who only stands out because his voice is annoying to me. To me the material I've heard from either band is completely forgettable. Yet time and again they are touted as god's gift to music (by the press mainly).

My first inclination is to say it's just me getting old and stuck in my ways as to the type of music I like but I don't believe it's that simple. I've always been able to find something good out there even among newer bands. 

I guess what I want to know is:
Am I getting old? (yeah I am but...)
Are these bands and for that matter any band that's super hyped by music critics and writers just being pumped for the sake of a dying industry?
Are these bands fav's of the hipster culture to simply drive a wedge between generations. I suppose my time has come to be "wedged out"! 

If you're a fan of either of these bands please understand no offense is meant by this thread. Argue their case! Maybe I can be enlightened.

or, maybe I just don't get it and never will... Maybe it's just that simple.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

No problem. Lotsa stuff I just don't get, either.

I don't get alcohol. I don't get intoxication. I don't get jewellery. I don't get luxury. I don't get fashion. I don't get cottages. I don't get travel or vacations in general.

So, not getting Arcade Fire or Kinds of Leon, no big whoop. They're a little different, and if you're waiting for a guitar solo from Arcade Fire, then you better bring a lunch and something to read, like Finnegan's Wake, or the complete Hansard.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Whatever. (I love it when I can say that.)

I find that most such lists and reviews are made by well-intentioned folks who know less about music (or whatever) than they know about style, or being current, or being hip within their own little world. Pop culture stuff is the short term memory of history. As such, I don't get it, but I also don't care. Whatever floats your boat as long as it doesn't capsize mine.

There's way too much music in the world to worry or concern yourself with the adoption of, or acceptance of, someone else's idea of what is "best" (or whatever). Popularity is fleeting, unpredictable, and a cruel mistress. Screw that. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

I feel the same way about those lists most of the time. Rolling Stone (can this even be called a "rock" magazine anymore?) has em all the time and the lists are just peppered with cookie cutter pop. Most of the time I find that like the Grammy's its pretty much a record sales contest, musicianship doesn't really come into play. 

Not liking Kings of Leon Isn't an age thing either. I actually just read an interview with them and they said that since they got so big on the radio the concerts are just filled with middle aged soccer moms.....not that there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Maybe I wasn't too clear in my OP. I'm not in the least hung up on this. Just thought it a bit of conversation fodder for a slow day.


----------



## Slash'sSnakepit (Aug 23, 2010)

I agree those Lists are a pain it's just like making lists of top 50 Guitarists I don't think there is a Best Guitarist because every established Guitarist has something good about them that makes them unique. In my opinion there are acts that come and go such as Kings of Leon and Arcade Fire and then there are the Bands that live forever such as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Van Halen, The Eagles and Guns N' Roses just to name a few. I agree the Grammy's are just a big Populairty contests.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

I wouldn't mind what the press think is good, because it usually isn't. For example, if I were to listen to what the press thinks is best for me I would have never went to see any movies starring Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Seagal or Norris.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Music always has, and probably always will be a very personal thing for the most part. Granted, the typical listener, especially in the old days when radio was about the only source of what we were being "told" was hip, we had that to choose from. Much bigger area to draw from now but it still can be confusing as to why some bands make it and some don't. We have Sirius here at the shop and we rotate around from the 70's, 80',90's and the hit channel. I can dig most of what is on the first 3 channels but the current hits channel does not give me much hope for the future. Every time I say that I always go back to when my Father used to ask me how I could listen to 2112 and call it music. So I am not totally sure its not just an age thing. There are a few current pop tunes that I don't mind, most of it is garbage IMO. 

There are not many of "my type" of rock bands springing up. The last one would have been the Smashing Pumpkins, the early stuff.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> The most obvious conclusion to draw from that is that the stuff that resonates with the largest audience over a long period of time continues to get played and the songs from the 60's, 70's and 80's that don't quite cut it by that standard eventually stop getting played. So people eventually forget how much garbage there was back then. Rose coloured glasses. The more current music just hasn't gone through the filter of time yet.
> 
> It's also partly an issue of people liking the music they listened to in high school the best, with nothing else that comes afterwards being able to live up to that standard.


I would agree with that in some respect. But it also has something to do with the way the songs are written and the instruments being played. There are very little real drums and guitars in these songs being spun on the hits channel. It's basically all electronic. Now back in the 80's I got into a lot of the "electronic" bands like Kraftwerk and there were even pop bands like OMD that for me, had tunes with lyrics that made sense and many songs with at least a beat or groove that was listenable. Some twit repeating G6, G6 over and over not only is annoying but makes no sense to me.

About the only song that comes on that channel that I kind of like is called "impossible" by a band named Anberlin

[video=youtube;bjE_2fFMnG0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjE_2fFMnG0[/video]


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> I think you're actually re-enforcing both points I just made.


For me, it re-enforces the current mentality of the typical listener. I don't mean that in a negative sense. It is what is being fed to the kids today and they really have no choice but to eat it. But if you have kids and you get some time to sit them down and spin some real music for them they will dig it big time. I have taken my kids, or used to when they were younger, to see bands like Rush, Boston, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones etc. They still listen to a lot of what is spinning today but they also have the older, more Rock and Roll bands in the arsenal. Clearly the 70's had it fair share of junk. So it's not entirely a new thing. But I am talking about top 10 radio here, it aint good. My boy was blown away at The Wall and he has been to a lot of shows.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I'm pushing 40 and think the new Arcade Fire album is brilliant. I love a bunch of old stuff (Neil Young and Led Zep were pillars growing up and still kind of "frame" my rock music tastes) but there is some great, great, music being made today.

If you don't like it that is cool, I've never been able to "get" U2 but they are distinctive and I can see what people like about them.

Kings of Leon, however, sounds like the most generic shopping mall music I have ever heard. Ugh . . .

TG


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

wow RUSH is still young. They aren't quite dead yet, not even retiring either, and for the most part they still are in full possession of all their marbles :B

Old music to me comes on cylinders and 78's that get played on hand cranked machines not made in 80 years. Middle age music typically has men going to war, fighting a war, or coming home from a war. Music of rebellion is simply young music to me still, from The Mamas & the Papas through to Nirvana with a little RUSH, Pink Floyd, and ZZ Top in the middle. Todays music is juvenile, more about marketing and product placement, but then society is for the most part as disposable as any of its constructs. Dexter reminds us that no ones life is worth keeping or redemption, and what really is one less person anyway. Top hit show, millions agree with that view. In fact, there are several people in court now who have taken the message and done their own Dextering out there. It is no different, people are as disposable as last weeks top 10. Society has taught itself well; if it cannot be bought, consumed and then crapped out it isn't worth anything.

Of course, I don't go in much for "society" and I tend to teach my kids rather differently. This Christmas they will be watching a lot of movies (home for the holidays and all that) and they are asking for black and whites and for animations. My kids are 9 and 12 now and they want movies from the 30's and 40's and 50's for their watching pleasure over these days off.

So, something from one of those movies, something from the middle life of recorded music, something that cannot be bought or sold, and something worth more than tin can cars or plastic phones to me 

[video=youtube;pMt0IdeWowk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMt0IdeWowk[/video]


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

I checked out both on youtube and I must say Arcade Fire seems the most original of the two. I have to give them kudos for the two live performances I saw. It was live warts and all. I didn't hear any autotune. I respect that these days.

Personally I don't get the Black Eyed Peas. Or Kesha. Sorry, Ke$ha. ( "She spells her name with a dollar sign, daddy" my daughter said to me with wide eyed wonder. "That's because she's a whore, sweetie" I replied.) Kanye West is another one. And Usher.

Who I do get is Doyle Bramhall and Joe Bonamassa.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> You're essentially comparing the best of yesterday to the worst of today. Hardly a fair comparison. If you want to pick random top pop hits from each decade, you'd end up with something more like Lady GaGa v. The Captain and Tenille. In that one, i think the modern age holds up.
> 
> For the record, I'm over 40 and would much rather listen to Arcade Fire than Rush.


I can't honestly tell you what is the best of today or the worst. Are you suggesting that Sirius Hits 1 or any other top 10-20 radio station is playing a mix of the worst and the best of music today? On the weekends they do the top 20 countdown or whatever the hell they call it and there is maybe 2-3 songs on there that I can tolerate, one being the song I posted above. Again, that is my view only and I, nor any one person can say whats good or not. You take one song and ask for 10 opinions and you are not going to get total agreement.


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

J S Moore said:


> ( "She spells her name with a dollar sign, daddy" my daughter said to me with wide eyed wonder. "That's because she's a whore, sweetie" I replied.)


LOL Thats hilarious. That autotune crap will go away soon methinks.


----------



## Slash'sSnakepit (Aug 23, 2010)

I'm a Teenager and at my High School we broadcasting Music throughout the School and I swear it is always this Autotune crap and Justin Bieber is all over the place.... One time I took over and I ha to save the school from "MIley Cyrus aka Bong Smoker" and "Selena Gomez" I swear it was too annoying... So I played some Zeppelin and ZZ Top and GnR and nobody cared...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Just to expand on what I was saying on an earlier post about how the songs are put together now being one of the things that has changed music for the worse. I was listening to a radio program a few weeks ago and they had one of the "new talents" on talking about how they put together the songs. Basically he dials in a looped drum, adds a keyboard section, sound effects etc, puts that all together and then sends it to a singer to add lyrics. They record that and send it back for final mixing etc. They are never even in the studio together. There is no "band". These are the songs I am talking about and there are many of them out there now. I dont have a problem with any bunch of "musicians" putting out music. If they can attract a following then they are doing something right.

Here is a prime example of the trash that is on today. This song by some geek by the name of Cee-Lo Green gets played on Sirius Hits 1 about 200 times a day and is like in the top 3 songs in the countdown. I want to slit my throat whenever it comes on.



> I see you driving ’round town
> 
> With the girl I love and I’m like
> 
> ...


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> They are never even in the studio together. There is no "band". These are the songs I am talking about and there are many of them out there now. I dont have a problem with any bunch of "musicians" putting out music. If they can attract a following then they are doing something right.


Reminds me of that post awhile ago about the computer program that creates popular music. Not that collaberations can't be good. A friend from Florida gave me a bunch that he did with people around the world but they were using real instruments. 


I have always been one to seek the odd and never too much a follower. I used to go into record stores and buy stuff that looked cool or had a connection to someone I knew of. I still like to spend time on Myspace just cruising bands and their friends. I spent several night's recently on CBC Radio 3 where indie bands can post their own pages. 

I don't get a lot of the newer "pop " stuff. A friend gave me a copy of the new Arcade Fire and I didn't make it through a whole song. 

There is some interesting stuff out their. Flashpunks' band The Reason I am digging. But I found them from a link he posted as a tag. 

There are some still one hit wonders out there... you know the come up with a unique sound but it really doesn't impress after awhile or rather wears thin... 

Being a late comer to jazz I still have a lot of old stuff to catch up on.
[YOUTUBE]sxTbVzY5KTY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> That's actually a wicked tune. Catchy as hell. And Cee-Lo is a tremendous talent. I saw Gnarls Barkley in Austin a couple of years ago and it was one of the best shows I've ever seen. The Globe & Mail actually had an editorial piece about the knee-jerk reaction people have to that particular song. Check it out...
> 
> That Cee Lo song? It&rsquo;s the Web flipping the bird to taboos - The Globe and Mail


Nuff said, to each his own


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> Apparently you don't like modern pop radio either. I'm not sure why you listen to it so much.


Unfortunately I dont have a lot of choice. Its what we play at the shop. According to the boss (wife) its what we have to play


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> "She spells her name with a dollar sign, daddy" my daughter said to me with wide eyed wonder. "That's because she's a whore, sweetie" I replied.


that would make a great christmas card- 
see now ive got the whole thing burned into my mind.


----------



## puckhead (Sep 8, 2008)

This is a pretty entertaining read on putting together those lists
Every Music Critic's Year-End Top 10 List Explained - Phoenix Music - Up on the Sun


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> It's also partly an issue of people liking the music they listened to in high school the best, with nothing else that comes afterwards being able to live up to that standard.


Well, perhaps I am an exception to that.
While some of the music I listened to then still has a special place in my mind & life, some of it I can't stand.

And I listen to a lot more blues now. While I did listen to some blues in high school, it wasn't until the post high school years that I really got into it, and expanded what I liked. I also got into black gospel later on as well. And my knowledge, appreciation, and listening to classical really took off in my 20's.

My 20's were more foundational for me, musically--although I don't discount my high school years.


----------



## Andy (Sep 23, 2007)

Arcade Fire? Absolutely not overrated. Just because there's little in the way of riffs or intricate guitar work shouldn't discount their obvious genius in songwriting and arrangement. Play one of their albums from start to finish, cranked, with the lights out. It's an incredible experience.

Kings of Leon? I won't deny their songwriting prowess, but their music does little for me, and they're widely known to be pricks to a live audience -- unacceptable in my opinion.

Cee-Lo Green? Love him. F*ck You is a great song that balances substance with mainstream appeal, and his work with Gnarls Barkley should convince you of his talent.

Bottom line is that this "musicians/kids/[insert whatever you want here] are not what they used to be" sentiment is a fallacy. There is plenty of talent and plenty of shit for every decade. Now, I won't deny that guitar driven music is starting to fall out of favour with the mainstream (think of the trumpet or saxophone in the 50's -- still present, but waning in popularity), but that doesn't mean that there isn't amazing music, every bit as worthwhile as that of your favourite era being released.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Arcade Fire are one of the best live shows I've ever seen. It's all about the songs with these guys. When I saw them there were eight members on stage, and they swapped instruments constantly throughout the show. These guys can really play.

Shawn.


----------



## Jocko (May 17, 2010)

I often find that current music does little for me then 20 years passes and a song comes on the radio and I think "I love that oldie" Then I think "how come I didn't like it when it was new"
This was the case with Motown, Hendrix, later Stones, a whole raft of music.
It must be change I take a while to adapt to.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Forty years ago (so I guess that means I'm over 40), I was briefly working for a tabloid music magazine that Montreal promoter Donald K. Donald was bankrolling (I _think_ it was called "Side One"). I was an album reviewer. I got a mountain of albums, none of which were really my choosing (but some of which were keepers), _and_ publication deadlines. I got to interview some interesting people as well. None of the groupie perks of "Almost Famous", unfortunately, but an interesting experience nonetheless.

When listening to albums is accompanied by the express purpose of writing about them, and HAVING to write about them within a fixed format, you think about them differently. I remember all too well, walking the 2 kilometers to the local Miracle Mart and buying "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere", by Neil Young (w/Crazy Horse), trudging back and putting it on. And, partly because it was something I had bought with my own money, rather than had "assigned" to me, partly because it was so different from much of what I was given to review, I thought it was the best thing I had ever heard, and it stood out as that summer's best listening.

It's the same thing with movies. You'll often see a flick and think "What the hell were the reviewers so negative/giddy about? That was/wasn't what I was led to expect by reviews".

The task of reviewing changes one's appreciation, and also changes what makes something stand out. There's plenty to like about Arcade Fire (I bought _Suburbs_ for my kid the day it came out), and there's plenty to like about KoL, but I suspect reviewers and critics like them just a little bit more because KoL have the honesty to BE a 4-piece guitar band (one of the things that made Oasis darlings of the British press), and because AF are clearly NOT a guitar or rap band and don't struggle to find ways to be creative outside those frameworks. If you're force fed a steady diet of Kanye, Taylor, Kesha, and Rihanna, Arcade Fire feels like a glass of fresh squeezed orange juice after subsisting off bread and water for weeks.


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

mhammer said:


> If you're force fed a steady diet of Kanye, Taylor, Kesha, and Rihanna, Arcade Fire feels like a glass of fresh squeezed orange juice after subsisting off bread and water for weeks.


That makes allot of sense, I never thought abbout it that way really. I still don't get why Rolling Stone gives glowing reviews to stuff like those other acts you mention every time they put out anything. I read about Owl City/MGMT/The Ting Tings and a few other acts like this in Rolling Stone before I heard them on the radio........made them out to be gods gift to Rock music. I turn on the radio and Im like "this is POP music, its F'in bubblegum" and they love it. Oh and please put another shirtless dude on the cover, thats what I want to be seen reading in transit.

Maybe i should get out of here and start my own "I F'in Hate Rolling Stone thread"


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

J S Moore said:


> ( "She spells her name with a dollar sign, daddy" my daughter said to me with wide eyed wonder. "That's because she's a whore, sweetie" I replied.)


somehow, i can't help but hear this in my mind, being said in a jimmy stewart voice.


aside from that, i think a discussion like this is kinda futile here on this board. the reason is, most of us, being adults, aren't supposed to "get" new music. it's not for us. trouble is, most of us, to varying degrees, have a very deep appreciation for music itself, so we "get" more than the average person does. at times it causes us to look for more significance than something actually merits. 
jmo, ymmv


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

:B

they are as fun to poke as to poke fun at :B

[video=youtube;d7n8GqewJ2M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7n8GqewJ2M[/video]


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Some interesting insights here. Thanks to those how explained what it is they like/dislike about the bands mentioned in the OP. I was mainly curious to know what qualities about these bands set them apart from the current crop enough to get the press they do. 

mhammer's insight that AF is not a guitar based band kinda rung the bell for me! I believe that's probably why they don't resonate with me as readily as some others might. A good guitar sound/hook/song is what immediately grabs me whereas something more ambient just hits me as white noise unless I make a concerted effort to tune in. That said, I probably shouldn't discount a band out of hand for not being guitar oriented. Enough people here who's input I respect have come out in favour of AF so maybe a second, more in depth review of AF might be in order. Sometimes things have to grow on you. Maybe this will, maybe not.

KoL on the other hand still comes off to me as bland "secretary rock". I've had to change the radio dial enough to know I'll not see them any other way.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> Forty years ago (so I guess that means I'm over 40), I was briefly working for a tabloid music magazine that Montreal promoter Donald K. Donald was bankrolling (I _think_ it was called "Side One"). I was an album reviewer. I got a mountain of albums, none of which were really my choosing (but some of which were keepers), _and_ publication deadlines. I got to interview some interesting people as well. None of the groupie perks of "Almost Famous", unfortunately, but an interesting experience nonetheless.
> 
> When listening to albums is accompanied by the express purpose of writing about them, and HAVING to write about them within a fixed format, you think about them differently. I remember all too well, walking the 2 kilometers to the local Miracle Mart and buying "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere", by Neil Young (w/Crazy Horse), trudging back and putting it on. And, partly because it was something I had bought with my own money, rather than had "assigned" to me, partly because it was so different from much of what I was given to review, I thought it was the best thing I had ever heard, and it stood out as that summer's best listening.
> 
> ...


Reviews are always going to have a flavor of the individual that does the review. I think it's impossble for there not to be. That goes for movies, music or anything that is written about by one person. For every great review there is a bad one somewhere in the mix. My best friend and I are a great example of this. We are on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of music and film. There have been so many examples over the years to prove this out. We argue about everything. He tries to turn me on to one thing and I am trying to turn him on to my stuff. He does not get Monty Python at all, nor Spinal Tap. He thinks they are terrible movies and cannot sit through them. I am sure there are many others that dont get it either and wonder why others do. I am sure there have been reviews on both sides as well. He thought that movie about Johnny Cash was the greatest thing he had ever seen. I thought it was OK but nothing to write home about. Music is the same as well. It is what it does "for you" and not someone else.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

As to the OP and Arcade Fire. Jam Music just named "The Suburbs" the album of the year.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2010)

I gotta admit The Suburbs sounded pretty lame on first listen. I always feel like I've been cheated whenever I buy Arcade Fire albums -- they get so much press and I inevitably pick up the album and...blah. I've bought every single one of their albums and felt that way! But I've given The Suburbs time and it's really grown on me. The lyrics, which I don't usually pay much attention to, are very well written. And the music had that subtle complexity to it, where new things reveal themselves with each listen, that's given me new appreciation for the band.

So if someone asked me which AF album to buy: I'd say The Suburbs. But doubt I'd ever recommend anything else they've done.

I like Kings of Leon tunes when someone else does them. Like Lykke Li. Although _Fans_ and _I Want You_ are pretty good tracks though you'll never hear _I Want You_ on the radio (at least not during waking hours).


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

From my perspective, I'd rather see a band that is doing something semi-original 'make it' than bands that are just cloning the sound of what's currently big. EG the mass of Nickleback-eqsue, formulaic 'hard rock' out there, all over-produced to sound the exact same. I may not listen to Arcade Fire, but the 'big' bands that have always really appealed to me are the ones that 'make it' by doing some unique, or at least a unique interpretation of their influences. They sort of fall into that category.

I don't agree with the knock on Cee-lo/Gnarls. The guy is pretty talented and is doing some really interesting music. Again, way more interesting than most of the stuff you will hear on top 40. And I can respect him for breaking into top 40 doing what he's doing. Check out some performances of him playing live with a full band. It's pretty impressive. It may not be your thing, but at least it's not purely studio music, cloned and formulated to be a hit. I don't even really listen to him, but some of the live stuff I have seen has definitely impressed me.

I know it's tough to be truly 'original' today, but I respect bands that are trying.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2010)

torndownunit said:


> I don't agree with the knock on Cee-lo/Gnarls. The guy is pretty talented and is doing some really interesting music. Again, way more interesting than most of the stuff you will hear on top 40. And I can respect him for breaking into top 40 doing what he's doing. Check out some performances of him playing live with a full band. It's pretty impressive. It may not be your thing, but at least it's not purely studio music, cloned and formulated to be a hit. I don't even really listen to him, but some of the live stuff I have seen has definitely impressed me.


I didn't read the whole thread but, someone knocked on Cee-Lo? No way. That guy has talent in spades. And his songs are awesome. Come on! He's ATARI!  How can you not love that?


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> I didn't read the whole thread but, someone knocked on Cee-Lo? No way. That guy has talent in spades. And his songs are awesome. Come on! He's ATARI!  How can you not love that?


I like Cee Lo too, though I haven't heard the song referenced. Don Ross does a nice version of Crazy on his new album.

Don Ross: CRAZY (Gnarls Barkley) | The Big Picture


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2010)

Sneaky said:


> I like Cee Lo too, though I haven't heard the song referenced.


[video=youtube;pc0mxOXbWIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU[/video]


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

iaresee said:


> I didn't read the whole thread but, someone knocked on Cee-Lo? No way. That guy has talent in spades. And his songs are awesome. Come on! He's ATARI!  How can you not love that?


I made the comment that I want to slit my throat everytime that FU song comes on the radio. I maintain that statement. I admit I have never heard of him nor heard another piece of his music, so I withhold comment on his "body of work". But that particular song reeks.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> You listen to pop radio and have never heard a Gnarls Barkley song? Not even "Crazy"?


Its very possible that I have heard it 1000 times, half the songs I dont know who the name of the artist is. Once in awhile I will look them up. But Sirius plays them back to back with no interuption so they rarely tell you who the artist is.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> You listen to pop radio and have never heard a Gnarls Barkley song? Not even "Crazy"?


I just looked up that tune and played it, yes I have heard that song many times before and have no issue with that one. Its a nice tune


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

What I want from a band or artist is that they be true to themselves, rather than try desperately to be something else. Sometimes, who they are is not particularly innovative or original. That's fine, not everyone should have a recording contract. But if you do, just be true to who you are and what your musical vision is. I don't mean that in the sense of constantly trying to be different; just trusting your own instincts and letting your muse take you where it wants. Muses on a leash generally turn out to be something else.

I like Arcade Fire for the same reason that I like Prince, Frank Zappa, and Charles Ives: you always get the feeing that they've been sequestered in a cave somewhere, and lost all touch with commercial radio....in the best possible way. And, truthfully, there is plenty of music outthere that one respects before you ever get to the point of liking. Sometimes getting to the point of liking takes a lot longer than respecting does.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

mhammer said:


> *What I want from a band or artist is that they be true to themselves, rather than try desperately to be something else. Sometimes, who they are is not particularly innovative or original. That's fine, not everyone should have a recording contract. But if you do, just be true to who you are and what your musical vision is. I don't mean that in the sense of constantly trying to be different; just trusting your own instincts and letting your muse take you where it wants. Muses on a leash generally turn out to be something else.
> *
> I like Arcade Fire for the same reason that I like Prince, Frank Zappa, and Charles Ives: you always get the feeing that they've been sequestered in a cave somewhere, and lost all touch with commercial radio....in the best possible way. And, truthfully, there is plenty of music outthere that one respects before you ever get to the point of liking. Sometimes getting to the point of liking takes a lot longer than respecting does.


That right there is what true music is, an expression of ones' inner self. Creating music to appeal to other people or groups is pop culture, nothing more.

That Cee-Lo tune is pretty funny. Once. I can see a real relationship exorcism going on there.


----------



## prodigal_son (Apr 23, 2009)

TOTALLY with you on this one. You are not getting old. This music is not prolific at all. Contrived and weak at best. Amen brother.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I had something intelligent to say, and now I forget *L*.

Everyone rags on the formulaic bands but there's a reason they are popular: it works! When I hear something with a melody I like on the radio (read: friend's car or Richmond Row in London) my brain usually gives it distortion and double bass and says "that would sound cool!".

The music I listen to doesn't come on regular radio and I buy CD's not a Sirius subscription, so my methods work well for me . KoL put out a song or two I don't mind, and the last AF song I can recall hearing is Neighbourhood #3 (Power out) years ago and I dug it then.

Pop music is meant to be just that, popular.


----------



## Greenbacker (Mar 29, 2007)

Slash'sSnakepit said:


> In my opinion there are acts that come and go such as Kings of Leon and Arcade Fire and then there are the Bands that live forever such as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Van Halen, The Eagles and Guns N' Roses just to name a few. I agree the Grammy's are just a big Populairty contests.


I don't think this is entirely fair. Part of the reason that a lot of these bands will "live forever" is because of _when_ they were active. (Don't get me wrong, I _love_ Zepplin and The Beatles.) In those days, the market wasn't as saturated and fragmented as it is today. The media was very different as well. There wasn't YouTube, or the internet so people weren't able to find niche bands as easily as we can today. People listened to the radio and bought vinyl. The industry was streamlined. Bands back then had to rely on big labels for production and distribution of their records because it was expensive. Its much easier to exist as a band today. Anybody can record a song on their PC and upload it to, say, MySpace. Immediate global accessibility.

Another part of it is their fan base. The bands you mention came out right around the time that the baby boomers were reaching maturity so suddenly a LOT of people were listening to music and these bands specifically. Today, many of these boomers sign off on newer music (so do I, in most cases) and are still mostly listening to these bands. So naturally, that have a faithful following which aids their _immortality_. 

The good thing about today's fragmented market is that no matter what your tastes are, there is music being made that suits your particular tastes and you can find it. With the internet, it's all accessible. You just have to know where and how to find it.

Don't count Arcade Fire out. I agree with many of the lists out there that say they made one of the best albums of the decade. The new record is pretty great too. They aren't a guitar band. Their music is much more lateral than, say a three piece. They're different. 

I despise Kings of Leon. Ha ha.

And The Eagles.


----------



## Greenbacker (Mar 29, 2007)

Budda said:


> I had something intelligent to say, and now I forget *L*.
> 
> Everyone rags on the formulaic bands but there's a reason they are popular: it works! When I hear something with a melody I like on the radio (read: friend's car or Richmond Row in London) my brain usually gives it distortion and double bass and says "that would sound cool!".
> 
> ...


Totally agreed. Someone's buying it.


----------



## Andy (Sep 23, 2007)

Slash'sSnakepit said:


> In my opinion there are acts that come and go such as Kings of Leon and Arcade Fire and then there are the Bands that live forever such as Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Van Halen, The Eagles and Guns N' Roses just to name a few. I agree the Grammy's are just a big Populairty contests.


I'd sincerely hope you're kidding. The Arcade Fire will be looked upon as a legendary band, just the same as the best of your list. In sheer creativity and quality of music, they absolutely bury The Eagles and GNR, and can (at least) hold their own against the rest. There's plenty of other bands of their calibre, too -- have you listened much to Radiohead (granted, they're older, but In Rainbows from 2007 was as strong as any of their releases), Muse, Thrice or Tool, among others? Plenty of accessible material there with incredible musical depth.

That being said, I'd agree that KoL aren't anything special.



Hamstrung said:


> Some interesting insights here. Thanks to those how explained what it is they like/dislike about the bands mentioned in the OP. I was mainly curious to know what qualities about these bands set them apart from the current crop enough to get the press they do.
> 
> mhammer's insight that AF is not a guitar based band kinda rung the bell for me! I believe that's probably why they don't resonate with me as readily as some others might. A good guitar sound/hook/song is what immediately grabs me whereas something more ambient just hits me as white noise unless I make a concerted effort to tune in. That said, I probably shouldn't discount a band out of hand for not being guitar oriented. Enough people here who's input I respect have come out in favour of AF so maybe a second, more in depth review of AF might be in order. Sometimes things have to grow on you. Maybe this will, maybe not.


That's a good habit to get out of. Guitar based music is definitely worthwhile, but it's not everything. For example, Mezzanine by Massive Attack is one of my all-time favourite albums. There are definitely guitars present, but the main instrumentation is electronic and percussion. Tuning your ear to new kinds of music can change your approach to the guitar.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

I do lots of driving so plenty of radio time.
For me too many bands are cookie cutter, not to many stand outs anymore. I find now that if I turn the radio off to answer a call I forget to turn it back on.
I even listen to classical or jazz to give me a break, another thing interesting is my hate for country has faded and I find the stories interesting.

Heard a great song the other day that this male country star did as a kid (Christmas song), he then re recorded it with himself at 12 and today, it was a great song and so out of the box!
It was refreshing to hear something so different.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Whenever I see or hear Arcade Fire for some reason I think of Supertramp, perhaps because they're each doing something a little diverse or off-the-wall in their respective times. But having said that .... they're certainly no Supertramp!


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Haven't listened to anything by Arcade Fire, although I will now. I like most things I've heard from Kings Of Leon. A refreshing break from all of the rap crap synthetic music played on the radio these days.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

davetcan said:


> Haven't listened to anything by Arcade Fire, although I will now. I like most things I've heard from Kings Of Leon. A refreshing break from all of the rap crap synthetic music played on the radio these days.


I don't know about Arcade Fire, but I know I hate rap.

[video=youtube;aAT0HdwlfBo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAT0HdwlfBo[/video]

Curt Hennig and the West Texas Outlaws, simply perfect.


----------

