Mike
Bennett:
December,
2001

More on The Strokes: Dialogue is a Good Thing

Apparently, folks weren't yet sick of talking about The Strokes - I got a lot of response to last month's column. There were two letters in particular that took issue with certain aspects of the column - both were so well written, I asked the writers, Stuart and Clive, if I could respond to portions of their respective missives.

Stuart noted at the end of his e-mail that The Strokes "got me listening to my Velvet Underground and New York Dolls records again." Not such a bad thing, right? Stuart further stated: "The Strokes are a good band, to be sure, but their music is so derivative and so one-dimensional that it simply can't measure up to the acclaim that it's being given. It's ok to be hyped. It's when a band is unjustly-hyped, as with The Strokes, that you start to see a backlash."

Excellent point, Stuart. I could make a lengthy list of bands that fall into this category. But one thing that has bothered me about the backlash here is that it focuses on so much that is unrelated to the music - often you wonder if the person slamming the band has heard the record. Now Clive, as you will see, didn't like the record, but I could tell he'd given it a shot, and then came up with reasons he felt the band was getting the hype, since, in his opinion, it wasn't in the grooves.

The basic premise of Clive's letter is that the more hype, the more likely the emperor being hyped has no clothes (literally true in Britney's case, eh?). Clive states that "[t]he genesis of [The Strokes] rise doesn't have to do with the music; it has much more to do with the fact that they have 'that look'--the anorexic, NYC street monkey--that the Brits and the Village Voice have always loved; they give great interview; and their producer gives them instant cred (nice guy with the 'right' background--Sky Cries Mary--but not one article mentions he's currently playing keys for the regurgitated [Psychedelic] Furs tour)."

Clive goes on to say: "So what gives? The five people who saw The Strokes at the Mercury Lounge last year rave on about them and suddenly it's buzz-time--a party line that has to be followed by the local critic in Kansas City to prove he's worth his salt. Has anyone even listened to this album? They're not even good musicians, just a piss-poor VU cover band. Worse, the misplaced buzz made The Strokes a priority for RCA Records--a label which released Sugarbomb's debut the same month as The Strokes' and dropped the former band less than two weeks later (no exaggeration)."

On one hand, I've made comments exactly like Clive's regarding a tendency of critics to 'follow the leader', so to speak. For me, the lavish praise being given to recent Radiohead discs exemplifies this scenario. Unlike Clive, I like the record, so we disagree there. Unlike many detractors, Clive doesn't vilify the band for coming from upper class backgrounds - which automatically scores points with me. As for outside factors influencing the press buzz around The Strokes, there may be some validity to that. Certainly being able to play ball with the journos helps. The look? Perhaps. I don't begrudge a band for having a cool image - and I've seen the video for "Last Night", and they look pretty freaking cool. But I can't for the life of me imagine how producing the Sky Cries Mary could help the band one iota. In fact, until Clive mentioned it, I was totally unaware that's who produced the album. Regarding the five folks at the Mercury Lounge - well, I can't quite buy that. The Strokes first Chicago appearance was opening for a sold out Doves show. There was little, if any, buzz here in Chitown. I know a handful of people who attended, and every single one of them was raving about The Strokes afterwards.

Clive responds: "New York has swallowed up more than its share of bands simply because no one knew they were here. That said, NYC is home to most major U.S. labels, and has the highest concentration of music critics in the country--so even if only a few people saw the Strokes, they were crucial ones for igniting a buzz (for instance, the band didn't get that Doves gig in Chicago without the bookers knowing who they were, which leads back to being seen in New York by influential people). To be fair, I've never seen them live--maybe they're great, but I can't picture them being any more exciting than, say, a foot rub. As for Gordon Raphael, the Strokes' producer, he was actually a member of Sky Cries Mary--a critically acclaimed band that went nowhere--so his involvement gave the Strokes a patina of (additional?) artistic credibility to those in the know. By the way, apropos of nothing, over the weekend I realized that the Strokes' vocalist sounds EXACTLY like the singer from Flesh For Lulu."

I think Clive's Flesh For Lulu comparison is pretty damn good. As for The Strokes live/foot rub analogy - sometimes it all depends on who's doing the rubbing, in my experience. As for the N.Y.C. critics igniting the buzz - assuming that this was what got them The Doves opening slot, the actual buzz hadn't hit Chicago yet, so the folks they impressed here were won over solely by the music (or maybe the music and the look?).

So Clive and Stuart, other than The Strokes, has there been anyone else in the last few years who you have also felt have gotten excessive hype and/or praise?

Clive: "U2's "All That You Can't Leave Behind" has about four good-to-great songs on it and the rest is forgettable, so it deserves some but not all of the praise it has received (the tour DID deserve it, however). Radiohead is certainly over-lauded, and heck, that third Oasis album comes to mind, too. (Actually, it was the last album Q gave 5 stars to until, you guessed it, The Strokes. Coincidence?)."

Stuart: "This question is difficult to answer because some acts may seem to me to be over-hyped simply because I don't like their particular style of music. Having said that, the following acts strike me as being ridiculously over-hyped and/or over-praised:

Badly Drawn Boy: The British press loves this guy. I have no idea why. I bought the CD because the reviews noted the influence of Nick Drake, etc. and praised the "visionary" songwriting. I sold it, after only two listens, because it's boring and pretentious.

Mercury Rev: Another example of the British press fawning over a truly mediocre act. I've heard their last two records and there's nothing even remotely original going on there. No guts to the guitars, no hooks to the songwriting. Again, just boring.

Ryan Adams: I actually liked some of the Whiskeytown stuff, including the most recent album, but his solo albums are pretty lame. The first album had two or three good songs, but the rest was a failed attempt to prove that he's a "serious" songwriter. Painfully slow. The most recent album, Gold, is even worse. It sounds like a trip through my sister's record collection, circa 1974. "Fool's Gold" would be a more appropriate title. Now that Elton John has jumped on the bandwagon, all bets are off."

One more question -- could you name three records released this year that you would recommend without qualification?

Clive: "Sadly, this is a really easy question. As a music writer (feel free to visit my site, www.cliveco.com), I get sent a lot of discs, and while many have a few good songs, I gotta say that the album that knocks you on your ass from start to finish is a rare commodity these days. That said, I swear that you can't go wrong with:

The Tender Idols: Distressor (E-Magine)--They take the entire, tired history of British Rock--from Floyd to the Pistols to Radiohead--and reinvent it, note by note, making it real and relevant for the first time in years. Put it on and listen to the wah-wah pedal that starts the disc; you'll recognize it as a homing beacon, welcoming you back to the cherished, classic album you've never heard before. Quite simply, "Distressor" is the record of the year.

Lloyd Cole & The Negatives: The Negatives (March)--Cole's last really good record was 10 years ago, and he hadn't written a proper pop song in an even longer span. Here, he teamed up with the cream of New York's indie rock elite and the result was, God forbid, a happy, rocking record. And what more, it turns out that a smile suits the old curmudgeon.

Sugarbomb: Bully (RCA)--I mentioned Sugarbomb in my comments against the Strokes, so I could be accused of having an ax to grind, but really, this is a cool record. While the thought of "Queen Meets Squeeze" reeks of novelty act (perhaps they should be called Queeze or Squeen?), all that really matters is whether a band has chops and songs; these guys need a dumptruck to carry theirs around."

Stuart: "Sad to say, but I'm not sure there are any records released this past year that I would recommend without qualification. Although each has a few weak cuts, I'd recommend any of the following: Robbie Fulks, Couples In Trouble; Tommy Keene Showtunes; Kevin Salem, Ecstatic; Dave Carter and Tracy Grammar, Drum Hat Buddha; Joe Henry, Fuse; Radio Birdman, recent Sub Pop collection; and Richard Shindell, Courier. (I know that's more than three.)"

Thanks guys - your comments are very much appreciated.

___________________________________________________

To reach any other page contained in this month's update on Fufkin.com, read the home page for the appropriate link and click on it. You can also search the site from any page using the search box located at the top of each page. Merely type in the word, phrase, name of the band, recording, name of the Fufkin writer that you are looking for or Whatever in the search box, and then click on "Search". If you would like to e-mail us, go to the About Us page for a list of e-mail addresses.

Go back to the home page by clicking here

____________________________________________________