The Genius of Guy Garvey/Elbow

'barry normal', eh, who thinks up these names! It's like a Calum character without the alliteration.

so off the mark it's unreal. justin timberlake singles are the sorts of thing you put on a) to dance to or b) as background music to a social occasion. elbow OTOH are the sort of band whose attention to detail and oblique song structure rewards repeated, concentrated listening, and they're the sort of band I can imagine listeners paying close attention towards. i understand that there are those who pay the same attention to a JT single, but these people IMO are trying to see things which aren't there; just get down and DANCE to it, or karaoke it, but don't dissect it, that's not what he's about. anyway, 'forget myself' alone is fifteen times more uplifting, danceable and fun than any JT track. its single version was also four minutes long, as are most elbow songs, so that argument's invalid too.

i've just angered half of ILM, but shall continue nonetheless.

*realises that 'Carl Taylor' is Gareth*...HAHAHAHA!!! Nice one, dude...

hate on great Rock groups like Coldplay

IT'S THE ENGLISH WAGEMANN

'Forget Myself' is so uplifting and danceable it's unreal.

And the video is one of the best music videos I've seen in a long time. If you want to say that choreography, costume and photography are visual treats for teenagers, well in this context it'd be pretty tough to argue. But that doesn't make them pretty much perfect.

And visual art isn't to be sneered at.

(I am very sorry from The ends of your fingers (I'll have to call you fTeoyf I suppose) I didn't mean to cause offence. I never patronise women, honestly ;-)

i understand that there are those who pay the same attention to a JT single, but these people IMO are trying to see things which aren't there; just get down and DANCE to it, or karaoke it, but don't dissect it, that's not what he's about.

My fav track on the last Justin album is like seven minutes long and not very much danceable. And surely any given artist is "about" whatever the listener gets out of their music? Why is listening to something in any certain way "wrong" if you get pleasure out of it?

And OF COURSE you can listen to Elbow as background music and not care much about it. You can do that with pretty much any music that isn't wilfully abrasive.

xpost ok if the ILM y00f is now growing up thinking that dissecting chartpop is somehow an idea that started with The Lex, good lord...

I'm sorry I'm not trying to wind anybody up, I thought this was a site where people liked to talk about music.

dude, have a look around the New Answers page, and then acknowledge that if you're gonna spout that kinda stuff here you've come to the wrong internet forum.

Daniel, would you say that JT thus rewards close, repeated listening? How oblique would you say his more 'difficult' material is?

Thanks. I didn't want to have to say that again

Gah! Thoughtful music?

ARGH!

Yeah, I would. It's a nice, hazy, druggish album, pulls off the tracks-flowing-into-each-other thing better than most, and I do enjoy his whole Evil Twin persona. I don't think you'd like it much, though, to be honest.

How oblique would you say his more 'difficult' material is?

I suppose it's oblique and 'difficult' in a chartpop context of sorts, but really that isn't what interests me about it. I really don't think an artist has to be oblique or difficult to reward close, repeated listening, either.

I just think that there is music which is fun at a party or nightclub, and you're not really meant to think about it it's just a bit of fun for dancing too. Like tsotp? said, dance to it or do it at karaoke but don't listen to it or think about it.
And then there are bands or artists who write music a little closer to the heart, that you listen to at home or in your car and maybe the lyrics mean something to you because the singer is trying to communicate about the universal feelings we all have. And to me that's better, but if you don't like music like that then fair enough.

HI DERE FOLKS!!!

Daniel, I really don't think an artist has to be oblique or difficult to reward close, repeated listening, either is an interesting point. My response would be to say that subjective obliqueness is precisely the sort of thing needed for repeat listenings to have any worth. If one got all one wanted from a song on the first listen, there'd be no need to hear it again. Of course, this almost never happens. The song has held something back, has kept something in reserve. Musical obliqueness, no matter how minor, is common to almost every song ever recorded.

Of course, there arises then the issue of re-living a song in order to experience the same hit over and over again. This is where your sentence gains credence, and as for the exact balance between this means of repetition and the one mentioned above, I'm willing to let the older hands sort that one out. What I will say is that close listening is only necessary when there is close detail to follow; this might not be 'oblique' GIVEN close listening, but would almost certainly be missed without it.

This bit makes me want to throw my computer out of the windae.

Let's just say I was only establishing the character. Boy is my face red.

Anyway, just a bit of fun, let's be cool.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, good one.

Consider the possibility that listening isn't a one-way process, Louis? You mightn't be strip-mining a passive object for its finite treasures, maybe.

Actually, my entire musical outlook is essentially modernist; I won't judge music based upon its grounding or its age, and in fact I generally value modern music above older because a) there's so much more that can be done in studios now and b) with knowledge of prior music future musicians will know where the bar stands, and how high they have to leap in order to exceed it. There's a reason I've got no 60's or 70's and very little 80's in that there list; musical ideals have simply improved since then, with more at stake and more achieved.

As for the reason it's not all up-to-date and flashy-shiny, well, there are two reasons. Firstly, my initiation into modern music happened in the 90's, and I'm bound to retain a lot from then, and secondly, I've favoured buying music from the recent past over that of the present, because a) it's easier in retrospect to judge what's classic than in the heat of the moment, b) I can always buy stuff that comes out now, but you gotta grab the older shit before it disappears a) out of my consciousness and b) off the shelves, and c) (this c) refers to the original a)-b) sequence) I reckon we're going through a bit of a lull at the moment, a lull which has coincided with the lack of any release by Radiohead or Blur. Just joking, kids. But seriously, 2006 was a pretty shit year!

Plus, the songs up there are just bona fide classics regardless of generation. What a silly point to make, meltingglaciers!

-- to scour or to pop? (papiermachealamphibia...), February 1st, 2007.