Arctic Monkeys

'oasis are actually very talented.

clever talleneted and sucessful.

the furries, were sh*te, and more like a 3rd rate pub band.

brit pop was a huge movement throught the nineties and very succesful, and i doubt you'd have the sh*t art rock bands that pussy foot around today if if it wasnt for that.

artic monkeys say it perfectly

"the weekend rockstars in the toilets practisicing there lines"
"super cool bands with there trilbys and glasses of white wine"'

And anyway musical history is full of people outside of a music's cultural area of origin wanting to be part of that scene. I think what have people upset here is the Arctic Monkeys are a throwback to a type of music they personally don't much like and don't want to see it gain any traction. Doesn't the UK know they should be listening to Grime?! Dizzee needs to eat too! Come on!

The new tracks on the EP were very disappointing.
As I suspected, they're already on the rocky/rockist road to self-mythologising/self-justification.
They should concentrate on their music instead of getting bogged down over what people, contributors to this thread included, think of them.

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm

This is another reason why The Drift comes as such a sonic delight (relatively speaking); the emotional peaks and troughs of the music are accurately mirrored and recreated (the truly cinemascopic drum avalanche at the beginning of "Cossacks Are," Donald Duck plus orchestra in "The Escape," etc.).

interesting article, but personally i think its a more sinister problem, relating to the streamlining of sound to make people less aware of 'quality', and making music more easy to manufacture. can you create another pink floyd? no. can you create another arctic monkeys? yes. they both make money. only one is a product that can be made instantaneously. one is legendary, one is crap.. but its relative. and relative to the current state of music lovers, crap is apparently good. :)

X-post - lovethefrench - that's something I'm looking into now, actually, the A&R marketing aspect of it.

Which is off-topic, but came to mind re: looking at marketing and turnover of acts.

or BOTH

re. touring & promo -- yer beatles and stones were always on tour weren't they?

1966: five or six major record labels run by people who had been around since days of al bowlly/glenn miller, didn't really have a clue about what the kids liked so were happy to throw anything into the mixer to see what came out.

2006: three or four multinational shareholder-driven organisations relying on instant returns, usually run by people who weren't even around in days of cobain, decided by committee what the kids should like so unhappy to throw anything into any mixer which doesn't sound like something that already came out, and therefore will make immediate money.

perhaps i should have been more specific... lets say... the dark side of the moon period, the meddle period.. NOT the wall period

okay... hate what you want...

but man, you're missing out

the people who are missing out, are the people who haven't heard it's about time by christina milian.