HAIM

A few years ago, a group of us middle aged pop hacks were disconcerted to discover that the 20somethings who were with us were wildly more enamoured of 80s MOR than we were. They couldn't believe our contempt for Everything I Do, for example, which they thought was an amazing ballad. So I think the assertion that 80s signifiers are for the old men might be misreading it.

Absolutely. This music has different resonances for different generations and lots of Haim fans are people who have discovered it via a similar route to the band rather than older guys (and why do middle-aged women never get mentioned?) who were big Mac fans in the 80s.

Right - '86 pop is slowly becoming the retro sound of right now. Of course it's going to appeal to younger generations, possibly more so than those who actually had to live through that sound at the time. Not dissimilar from the electro and post-punk revivals of last decade, just feels a lot more narrowed in on a very specific type of pop music.

The reason 'middle-aged men' were brought up is because that's what the Twitter/CollapseBoard people were arguing about being the target market for Haim and there was some discussion as to who was the target market - teens, middle-aged rockists or under-35 y/o hipsters.

Kind of depressing when discussion of music degenerates into guessing who the "target market" might be.

Which is worse, a band who knows their key demographic, or a band who just make music for themselves, and if anyone else likes it that's a bonus?

otm, plus it always ignores how diverse each of those markets are, and how - esp w/younger ones - a lot of it is reacting against itself

fleetwood mac have been "credible" touchstones for 20somethings for a while now i think? see also steely dan. and def 80s teen romances.

It's kind of an ipso facto thing that if '86 pop or whatever appeals to Haim, it very likely could appeal to their similarly aged peers as well.

Key thing, I guess, is that a lot of 20somethings will know these records inside out … because their parents had them, and probably also bought all the I Love the 80s-style comps. The only place 80s MOR didn't stay prevalent was in critical discourse; everywhere else it never went away.

this whole "its retro but hmmm what kind of retro is it?" talk drove me crazy when people were dissecting Kaputt and it drives me crazy w/ Haim. sure, no music exists in a bubble but jeez you guys give it a rest-- it sounds like 2013!!! music is music its not evolutionary biology.

So does that mean it shouldn't be discussed, or that you are bored by it being discussed? If the latter, why not just not read the thread?

At least the bands that HAIM have been compared to are slightly less questionable in quality than the ones The 1975 were being compared to.

I don't care what target demographic Haim aim for/appeal to. But (as with the collapseboard article and the subsequent furore) it is something that's been used as a club to beat them with, rather unfairly I should say.

For sure, I doubt many of the critics comparing the band to Fleetwood Mac could articulate exactly what aspect of Fleetwood Mac this band sounds like.

Like, it's really easy to reference those acts in a drive-by shorthand, but one thing I really like about Haim is that the band bears some musical scrutiny. I can compare them to Fleetwood Mac, but also explain why. I can bring up Latin freestyle, but also illustrate why that may be a touchstone. Hell, I could also bring up (and did) Wilson Philips, too, but not just because the band is three women singing pop songs. The touchstones and references have some specificity to them.

A lot of it is down to the lead singer's deeper vocal timbre. It's very distinctive and reminiscent of Chrissie Hynde, Stevie Nicks etc. I can also hear a bit of Bad-era Michael Jackson in there too with the vocal tics and the production style. I could see them doing a cover of The Way You Make Me Feel or something.

i think danielle's voice sounds similar enough to mcvie's

Maybe I mean McVie. I love the Mac's music but my background knowledge of who-was-who is woeful.

she doesnt sound like stevie, no

Ironically, their rough "Hold Me" sounds less like this era of Mac than the stuff on the album that is getting compared to the Mac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPaFA9eOogo

Vocals on point, though.

lol @ wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_(band)#Artistry

HAIM has been compared to 70s soft-rock legends Fleetwood Mac; however, they insist that their influences are a bit more up-to-date, revealing they are big fans of 90s girl groups TLC and Destiny's Child, and of Kendrick Lamar, Jessie Ware and Azealia Banks. Consequently, their music sounds a bit like folk-rock with a few R&B/hip-hop stylings thrown in for good measure.[28]

Well I'm glad that's finally settled.

It's always bugged me a bit when people call Fleetwood Mac soft rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPNGKZHRFSU

ah yes, Lindsey brief flirtation with Amish fashion

Ahead of his time!

the singer lady sounds like ani difranco. no judgments.

really feeling this record

this whole "its retro but hmmm what kind of retro is it?" talk drove me crazy when people were dissecting Kaputt and it drives me crazy w/ Haim. sure, no music exists in a bubble but jeez you guys give it a rest-- it sounds like 2013!!! music is music its not evolutionary biology.

― ᶓ͠סּᴥ͠סּᶔ ᶓͼ᷆ₓͼ᷇ᶔ (gr8080), Thursday, 3 October 2013 14:18 (Yesterday) Permalink

otm!

this whole "its retro but hmmm what kind of retro is it?" talk drove me crazy when people were dissecting Kaputt and it drives me crazy w/ Haim. sure, no music exists in a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR-NXv5Tma0&oref jeez you guys give it a rest-- it sounds like 2013!!! music is music its not evolutionary biology.

― ᶓ͠סּᴥ͠סּᶔ ᶓͼ᷆ₓͼ᷇ᶔ (gr8080), Thursday, 3 October 2013 14:18 (Yesterday) Permalink

lol

i really like haim but what is up with "my song 5"? have we discussed this? did timbaland produce it?

Astonishing and shitty Everett True piece on why Any Music Writer Who Says They Like Haim Is Lying And Only Doing It For Web Traffic

http://www.collapseboard.com/everett-true/haim-an-open-letter-to-christopher-r-weingarten/

Oh, now he's taken it down. But here it is.

Hey Chris

You miss the point, if you think this is a reignition of the old ‘pop vs rock’ debate. (Scott’s written far worse criticism of near most all the cherished ‘buzz’ indie bands, for example.)

Far as I read it, Scott had two main criticisms of the Haim album.

1, It’s not a good album. (At least your brief blog entry attempts to address why you like it, which most others haven’t – instead howling ‘sexism’ at the slightest criticism.)

2. The critics who profess to like it… i.e. the 40-something white male middle-class Guardian critics… are actually being way more patronising and (yes) sexist in their professed understanding of teenage girls than folk who just come out and say it’s no good. And this is who much of the review was aimed at.

I too think there is often something inherently sexist when ‘indie’ fans express a dislike for ‘pop’ bands. However, I don’t think this is one of these occasions. I believe that Scott’s criticisms were far more directed towards the usual defences that male, white, middle-aged, middle-class music critic will use (and have already used) to help express their ‘love’ for Haim..

How fortunate that so many WHITE MIDDLE CLASS MIDDLE AGED CRITICS (mostly from the US and UK) have discovered the latent love for pop music that always laid deep within, just at a time when it’s been proven that you WILL NOT GET WORK AND CERTAINLY NOT GET PAID if your music criticism does not attract the requisite number of hits in web 2.0 environments. And what are folk more likely to read about? A mild ‘controversy’ around Haim and Miley Cyrus or a 2,000 word rave about the new The Garbage & The Flowers reissue?

An interesting volte face for the field of music criticism, I’m sure you agree – from opinion-leaders and gate-keepers to mainstream cheerleaders, there to reassure EVERYONE (but especially those in the popular eye) that their taste is just as valid as everyone else’s – more so, in fact, because more people agree with them. Fuck having personal opinions or values, feel the warmth of the tens of thousands of hits.

Of course the rockists – MOJO, SPIN, Q Magazine, Rolling Stone et al- needed taking down however many pegs they wrongly claimed for themselves. Sure, you can consider elitism a dirty word – although why it’s dreadful to determine your own value system and aesthetics, separate to those being battered into you by mainstream pop culture and the mainstream critics, I don’t understand. But the pendulum has now swung so extreme the other way (mostly pushed by the former rockists: there’s nothing like a born again music critic) that now you’re not even allowed to criticise certain genres of music – ‘pop’, say, whatever the hell that is – without being called rockist or sexist. Hmmm. They do say that interpretation often says more about the person doing the interpreting than the original creators.

Quite why certain mainstream UK music critics find themselves so riled by the writing of Scott Creney and also Neil Kulkarni – to my mind, two of the finest (nay, *only*) music critics in the UK and US – is a conversation for another time. The impression I receive is that they’re intimidated – not because they’re in fear of their jobs (clearly, they’re under no threat there) – but because the writing of Scott and Neil remind them of the freedom to speak your mind that the greatest critics have always displayed, a freedom they lost long ago.

Cue more self-righteous outrage. Sigh.

I’ve written this email after having just driven 15 hours back to Brisbane from Sydney, so you’ll need to excuse me if it jumps around a bit: but I’ve been thinking about this for most the way – inspired yesterday by various old rock critics’ provocative Tweets calling Scott’s article ‘sexist’ – something which it clearly isn’t. (Man, the irony of having a MOJO editor accuse Collapse Board of gender imbalance!)

And I wanted to get it out while it was still fresh.

As is the norm these days, wherein every personal conversation is considered important enough to hold in public, I will of course be publishing this email on Collapse Board.

Anyway. Appreciated your blog. Thoughtful as always, even if I do feel you entirely misread Scott.

All the best
Everett

P.S. This criticism might not apply to every U.K. broadsheet (website, music magazine) music critic out there. I’m starting to have my suspicions that Dorian Lynskey (for example) might be being sincere – even if I do violently disagree with some of his combative language and ABSOLUTELY disagree with his conclusions (at least in this matter). But Lord knows, it applies to enough of them.

Glad you were able to preserve that. Unfortunately, it gave me headache.

Misses the point that in the media outlets he's criticising, the reviews of pop acts that get traffic are the complete demolitions, not the raves. The raves just get the old men moaning.

Just had an email exchange with Everett, who says he went overboard with that one.

must admit i'm completely baffled by the rage this album elicits? it's not for me b/c i'm not so into that sound that i care about people recreating it so faithfully but even i can hear the hooks are there and it'd be catnip for others.

Overboard? I thought it just read as a bit drippy. I realise he probably wrote it in a grumpy slumber, but if you're going to present an argument at least come up with something a bit more convincing than these empty ad hominems. Same goes for the Haim review - I'd be more inclined to take a negative review seriously if it did more than said 'if you like this band you are either a pretentious idiot or too young to know better'.

That's one thing. Berating a band because they are not enough like a band you prefer is another. Comparing it disdainfully to your new favourite book, though......

Ageing rock critics get very angry when young people like music they thought they had consigned to the critical dustbin 20yrs previously.

I don't get the sense that Haim are aimed at young girls particularly anyway? I mean one of the reasons they were so highly-tipped in the first place was an obvious pan-generational appeal.

There's also a sub-resentment here about critics who don't EMOTE enough, but if you genuinely believe the prose of Scott Creaney invokes the blistering white heat of rock and roll then you've got bigger problems then old people liking a Haim album.

The critics who profess to like it… i.e. the 40-something white male middle-class Guardian critics… are actually being way more patronising and (yes) sexist in their professed understanding of teenage girls than folk who just come out and say it’s no good. And this is who much of the review was aimed at.

This argument is really something.

The crux, as Matt suggests, is that ET thinks that "passion", when expressed in the form of "c'mon kids" rants directed at soft targets (ie MM when he was in his pomp), is the zenith of music journalism and that everyone else is just a time-serving establishment lackey. If that's his taste, great, carry on commissioning - it's a strong voice, it strikes a chord with some people - but it doesn't occur to him that a lot of people just think it's terrible, terrible writing. I'm not scared of The Truth. I'm scared of overheated, posturing, adolescent bullshit written by people some distance from adolescence.

Man, the irony of being called "old" by Everett True.

And what are folk more likely to read about? A mild ‘controversy’ around Haim and Miley Cyrus or a 2,000 word rave about the new The Garbage & The Flowers reissue?

^ bit of a cliffhanger to end that paragraph on.

FWIW I'm entirely pro- that sort of writing when it's done with actual style and verve and wit and INSIGHT and not just a firehose of signifiers of excitement saturated with prejudices the writer has never bothered to challenge. The difference between Steven Wells and that Haim review is vast. (Btw I think Kulkarni has written a lot of great stuff)

I mean I understand that making prejudice into a virtue is kind of the point but if you're going to do so don't piss yourself when people point and laugh.

I'm all for passionate prose but it needs to tell you something beyond "I stand for good music, not bad music" and schoolboy Stick It to the Man rhetoric. Most of the stuff I read in that style today is a long way down from the late 80s/early 90s work of Steven Wells or, dare I say it, Everett True.

I've always had the distinct impression the bulk of their fans are 20-something's like themselves, not teens or middle aged men.

^^^ Middle-aged white dude.

Word.

The idea that in a hits-driven business climate, a positive review of a new and heavily hyped act would generate more attention than a scathing evisceration is kind of mystifying.

Also mystifying is this presentation of pop-leaning critics as caving into popular consensus, as if there aren't critical outlets in less pop-friendly, less obviously mainstream spaces whose reviews clearly set the tone for how certain sacred cow acts are received. How is that reality any different from the fantasy scenario he's just constructed?