Do the British Music press unjustly hype bands that don't cut it?

[Guest Len B'stard]

A lot of bands i think are amazing, The Stone Roses, The Smiths, are very English and i was reading an article the other day that said that their amazingness is something that is largely the construct of the British music press who have a thing about "the second coming" (not the roses album) and tend to puff up and inflate bands and in a sense construct a history for fans to follow when the reality of the situation is that these bands perhaps aren't so good or are average of good or very good but not the great leaders of the next generation of whoevers, what do you think?

The Stone Roses could be a great example, or Blur or Pulp or Suede or even Oasis although Oasis bought the good somewhat relative to these other bands...and also, the British press have had a nose for certain things that DID become big when they were in their formative stages, like the Seattle thing and Nirvana etc. Not sure if Guns n Roses would come into that, a better Guns historian than myself would have to answer that question although i do know they were like, darlings of the music press when they went over there, whether that was before or after they became Big Charlie Potatoes stateside of not i'm not sure.

You could throw The Libertines, The Arctic Monkeys etc into this. Apparently, British Hype has become or is a thing with American Record Labels where, though it's encouraging, it doesn't eliminate all scepticism, it's still like, "oh yeah, well lets see them (the band) prove it"

Edited February 13, 2011 by sugaraylen

[Tater Totts]

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[KetchupNotMayo]

NME bandwagon a hell of a lot; Nevermind was at first slated by them and is now looked upon with adoration, just as Rolling Stone did the exact same thing.

They big up a lot of generic bands that they know will strike a chord with those 'oh look at me I'm so alternative' guys, but their praise for bands like Oasis, The Stone Roses and The Smiths is thoroughly justified in my opinion.

[Snake Eyes]

Sometimes. Take this year, NME are hyping up Mona and Brother, who are without doubt two of the worst bands of all time, based on two mediocre songs they've come out with.

I think the hype for stone roses, libertines, smiths, arctic monkeys, strokes, foals etc. is entirely justified though.

[Shuffle]

yeah, the british music press (mainly nme) is notorious for hyping shit (like brother). but they do get it right on occasion (stone roses, oasis, libs, manics etc). but since they keep hyping too many shitty bands it's always gonna be like "oh so nme called them the greatest thing ever? yeah, right". so it's a two-edged sword for the bands. many people will check them out because of the hype, but many will ignore them for the same reason since they're thinking they're just another nme-hype.

[GivenToFly]

Only remotely related to the topic, but I can't even describe how boring I find English music. I love some English bands doing American music (like Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc.) or something more universal, that doesn't sound country-specific (like Pink Floyd), but bands like the ones listen in the OP, or others that sound distinctly English, well they're boring for a few minutes, then downright annoying. And these bands that are supposed to be so good now, like Towers of London and Kasabian, yuck!

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

Only remotely related to the topic, but I can't even describe how boring I find English music. I love some English bands doing American music (like Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc.) or something more universal, that doesn't sound country-specific (like Pink Floyd), but bands like the ones listen in the OP, or others that sound distinctly English, well they're boring for a few minutes, then downright annoying. And these bands that are supposed to be so good now, like Towers of London and Kasabian, yuck!

I love me some British indie <3

[Snake Eyes]

Only remotely related to the topic, but I can't even describe how boring I find English music. I love some English bands doing American music (like Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc.) or something more universal, that doesn't sound country-specific (like Pink Floyd), but bands like the ones listen in the OP, or others that sound distinctly English, well they're boring for a few minutes, then downright annoying. And these bands that are supposed to be so good now, like Towers of London and Kasabian, yuck!

Each to their own man, I love it. But I will say, I don't think you've grasped the amount of great bands about when you mention Towers Of London. Everybody hates them, and they play dives.

[Conor]

I've never particularly liked that sort of thing anyway. The whole NME/Radio 1 culture. People just listen to what those things tell them to, I can't abide the kind of people who have as many songs on their iPod as artists.

[GivenToFly]

Only remotely related to the topic, but I can't even describe how boring I find English music. I love some English bands doing American music (like Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc.) or something more universal, that doesn't sound country-specific (like Pink Floyd), but bands like the ones listen in the OP, or others that sound distinctly English, well they're boring for a few minutes, then downright annoying. And these bands that are supposed to be so good now, like Towers of London and Kasabian, yuck!

Each to their own man, I love it. But I will say, I don't think you've grasped the amount of great bands about when you mention Towers Of London. Everybody hates them, and they play dives.

...or whoever. I just picked two names at random that I know.

It wouldn't bother me at all, except that I live in England and it's all around me, inescapable.

[dalsh327]

They were good bands. What's real interesting is who had the worst songs on a top 40 chart, the US or UK. I do think American kids that pay attention to British rock bands because of the hype are more of a cult though.

I think when 4AD signed on Throwing Muses and The Pixies, it drew attention to American indie rock in the mid-late 80s.

I'm pretty sure GNR were embraced by the British kids pretty early on.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Only remotely related to the topic, but I can't even describe how boring I find English music. I love some English bands doing American music (like Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc.) or something more universal, that doesn't sound country-specific (like Pink Floyd), but bands like the ones listen in the OP, or others that sound distinctly English, well they're boring for a few minutes, then downright annoying. And these bands that are supposed to be so good now, like Towers of London and Kasabian, yuck!

I myself am not at all a fan of Kasabian or Towers of London or Arctic Monkeys or The Libertines but as a follow on from what you're saying, the reason i have very little truck with much American music, specifically of the rock description post the 1970s, with the exception of some (and i do mean some) punk bands/artists and their offshoots and hip hop (so i suppose im specifically talking about the rockier stuff here) is how fucking thick it all is. It seems to me to be music designed for disabled people. It's just insultingly direct i.e. angry = loud, energetic = fast, happy = melodic, melencholy = soft and as a result of which, very tiresome. People, often fans of the sort of music i'm criticising here, ask me how on earth i can consider The Stone Roses to be a pretty hardcore fuckin band, it appears that attitude and content just goes TOTALLY over their heads. The same sort of people that take a lot of The Smiths or Morrisseys type stuff as mopey or depressing and don't cotton on to the humor involved. I mean, come on, Hairdresser on Fire?

It appears that, for America, to be working class and appeal to the masses you have to be dumb, which says a lot about what America thinks about it's masses. Whereas there are a great deal of working class bands from England where a lot of intelligence goes into what they do, The Pistols, The Clash, The Stone Roses, The Smiths, The Fall, Joy Division...many many more. I'm not sure why that is but i think it's possibly because there is a presumption stateside that intellect is the preserve of the upper echelons of society and not something required by anyone that might frequent a 7/11.

Now, there are definite fucking exceptions to this rule, a lot of the Seattle stuff one, Butthole Surfers etc but again, you're getting into an offshoot of punk there which i've mentioned as being exceptions already.

Even bands like The Rolling Stones who essentially play American music or their take on it, although they love and greatly admire American music i think it's impossible to escape that there is also a sense of parody going on there although you'll rarely hear someone like Keith Richards admit to that (although you might hear it from Mick). I can't understand how someone can hear Far Away Eyes for example, by The Stones and not see an element of piss take in it.

It's rare, and because of that tremendously pleasing, when the American mainstream takes to something with some brains to it. Marilyn Manson for example, who i dislike greatly but do recognise as an artist that put a lot of brains into what he did and is therefore valueable to some extent musically. But yeah, a lot of American stuff is quite thick and requires you to thicken up for the purpose of listening to it and it's mostly sort of post 60s rock. Very obvious and very patronising.

I mean just look at some of it through the 70s, 80s and 90s and 00s, Poison, Kiss, Poison, Cinderella, Motley Crue, Slipknot, Limp Bizkit, ugh, i'm getting a migrane just writing them down, y'know the sort of thing i mean though, the sort of bands where you feel if you pulled up their sleeves you might see a serial number and a barcode on their wrist with a demographic printed on it. Bullshit music. I can't really name band after band because, not having much regard for that sort of music it's difficult for me to make a comprehensive list.

I hope no one takes offence to any of this, at least in terms of thinking that i'm assigning a specific label to any nationality or calling them thick, the point i'm trying to put across is that the people that sell you music THINK you are thick.

Edited February 13, 2011 by sugaraylen

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

l if you pulled up their sleeves you might see a serial number and a barcode on their wrist with a demographic printed on it.

I hope you don't mind if I borrow this one, Len my man. You just hit it out of the park

[Guest Len B'stard]

l if you pulled up their sleeves you might see a serial number and a barcode on their wrist with a demographic printed on it.

I hope you don't mind if I borrow this one, Len my man. You just hit it out of the park

Only if you gimme your screenname I always thought it'd look cool with an avatar of that close up of Mick from the Jumpin Jack Flash video, i'm sure you know the one i mean.

Edited February 13, 2011 by sugaraylen

[Jumpin' Jack Flash]

l if you pulled up their sleeves you might see a serial number and a barcode on their wrist with a demographic printed on it.

I hope you don't mind if I borrow this one, Len my man. You just hit it out of the park

Only if you gimme your screenname I always thought it'd look cool with an avatar of that close up of Mick from the Jumpin Jack Flash video, i'm sure you know the one i mean.

No can do, mate My name's all I have going for me for the time being. You can have half of it if ya like.. I think if I were to ever change my avatar it'd prolly be to a scaled-down version of this

[wasted]

The pop sensibility of bands like Blur, Suede, Stone Roses, Pulp does translate well to the international rock market. NME is definitely fickle though, that's part of pop though, it's ephemeral. The bands with more rock sound do better like Oasis and Radiohead. Even Bush.

[Zint]

I was in England 1990 and 1991.

I remember seeing a magazine around then (think it was NME??).It was a special issue devoted to the Stone Roses.

"THE NEXT ROLLING STONES"

"THE BEST BAND SINCE THE ROLLING STONES".

It even came with a sample disc of a few songs.

The next Rolling Stones eh?..well,I'm up for that..gonna buy this and get the jump on the cats at home.

I was really excited.

Got home and read the magazine and played the tunes.

I was underwhelmed to say the least.

I can't say I gave them a second glance after that,but didn't in any way feel encouraged to.

(I bought that magazine instead of buying Glen Matlock's book "I Was A Teenage Sex Pistol)..still regret that!

[JAC185]

NME in particular are so eager to be able to say they were behind the next big thing that in recent years it has become a bit of a joke (by which I mean who they put on the cover, not the magazine itself, which has been a joke for far longer).

I mean The XX, The Drums, really? I think they just arbitrarily latch onto a band and push them in the same way tabloids report so many random football transfer stories just on the off-chance something comes of it, so they can put out a retrospective demonstrating their utterly remarkable perspecacity.

Also Len with regards to your first post, Slash in particular has said the UK got GNR way before the US did. The 87 tour over here was supposedly big tabloid fodder before they had really struck a chord in the US.

We also got Hendrix and Bill Hicks first so sometimes we get things right.

I was in England 1990 and 1991.

I remember seeing a magazine around then (think it was NME??).It was a special issue devoted to the Stone Roses.

"THE NEXT ROLLING STONES"

I still hear people say similar things today, only with a tone of disappointment at how things transpired. I do really rate the first record but have never really grasped this ethereal brilliance some people have placed in the potential of that band.

Edited February 15, 2011 by JAC185

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

It's not just music. the Premier League gets it, English footballers get it, English sportsmen in general get it. We like to hype.

[misch]

I was in England 1990 and 1991.

I remember seeing a magazine around then (think it was NME??).It was a special issue devoted to the Stone Roses.

"THE NEXT ROLLING STONES"

"THE BEST BAND SINCE THE ROLLING STONES".

It even came with a sample disc of a few songs.

The next Rolling Stones eh?..well,I'm up for that..gonna buy this and get the jump on the cats at home.

I was really excited.

Got home and read the magazine and played the tunes.

I was underwhelmed to say the least.

I can't say I gave them a second glance after that,but didn't in any way feel encouraged to.

(I bought that magazine instead of buying Glen Matlock's book "I Was A Teenage Sex Pistol)..still regret that!

Out of all bands the british media hyped in the last 20 years this is one case where they were absolutely right. The first record is one of the best albums ever recorded. Period.

[wasted]

...and NME were looking in the right place, The Roses were at the heart of rave culture, the rock/dance culture crossover. But I think culture had changed, for a band to be big they don't have to be at the center of a revolution like The Beatles and The Stones, they have to have universal appeal, be a bigger more commercial rock band. Enter Oasis. I think Noel even said bands like The Mondays and The Roses did the groundwork, Oasis just kicked down the door.

But to me The Roses sound more like The Smiths than The Rolling Stones, a very E'd up Smiths. Weird thing was that Squire had the idea to develop them into a more Zeppelin Stones type band but Ian Brown was against it. Hence The Second Coming took too long, but it was much more likely to well internationally than the debut. I wanna be Adored, I am the Resurrection, Fools Gold - they had it all but somehow fucked it up, ending up more like The Sex Pistols of indie.

[Guest Len B'stard]

they had it all but somehow fucked it up, ending up more like The Sex Pistols of indie.

The Sex Pistols fucked nothing up, everything to do with them happened in the right kind of wrong way, their entire existence has been perfect

[wasted]

they had it all but somehow fucked it up, ending up more like The Sex Pistols of indie.

The Sex Pistols fucked nothing up, everything to do with them happened in the right kind of wrong way, their entire existence has been perfect

same with The Roses. they were meant for world domination.

[ITW 2012]

they had it all but somehow fucked it up, ending up more like The Sex Pistols of indie.

The Sex Pistols fucked nothing up, everything to do with them happened in the right kind of wrong way, their entire existence has been perfect

same with The Roses. they were meant for world domination.

The Stones Roses just had shitty timing.

[wasted]

they had it all but somehow fucked it up, ending up more like The Sex Pistols of indie.

The Sex Pistols fucked nothing up, everything to do with them happened in the right kind of wrong way, their entire existence has been perfect

same with The Roses. they were meant for world domination.

The Stones Roses just had shitty timing.

The missed HMS Brit Pop.