Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Nonsensical or well deserved?
no one likes to be told what they will be listening to in the next six months/year unless it's a recommendation from a trusted source/friend
it much more satisfying to discover something yourself
having said that - it's almost never the bands fault that they are hyped
Over exposure is another thing though, if you can't move for media proclaiming something to be the best thing since sliced bread based on an average track with an annoying video then obviously that's a turn off
i already never want to hear that sodding white lies song again as long as i live, or anyone mention their name, and i don't even hate them
just sick of them already
it's not their words, it's someone elses.
If you like the band in question, then you hardly notice it. If you don't like the band, you resent them being foisted at you at every turn. A current example would Mr Diver's sterling efforts on behalf of Three Trapped Tigers.
If a band happens to get noticed as they are apparently very "of the moment" and they are hyped to the max then it can create more problems than not as they will only briefly have their moment in the sun before the inevitable backlash begins.
I'm going to use the example of Franz Fedinanad here (which I know will get me slapped) but when their first album came out the band had been on the go for ages, slogging away and getting nowhere until all of a sudden they were the best thing since sliced bread and all over the music press and publications like the Observer and G2 etc etc.
When they ceased to carry on delivering instant hits like "Take me Out" the backlash kinda began which I think can shoulder some of the blame for them feeling the pressure to pop out a 2nd album so fast and it not being very well received.
Now they have their 3rd album coming and I think becuase Franz are still considered very much "of a time" unless it's another album full of "Take me Outs" it'll flop and the band may split as a consequence.
I'm not claiming to know it all, it's just my opinion, john init.
You can't really win.
**THE NEXT STATEMENT MAKES ME HATE MYSELF**
I remember hearing stuff by the Strokes when they were still relatively unknown back in 2000/2001 and I really liked them. Then when every man and his dog was going gaga over the "Is This It" album I got slagged to hell for saying that I liked them pre hype.
But I echo your sentiments. I actually liked a couple of Crystal Castles things I got on a mix ages ago but after the NME made them some sort of amazing deities I began to hate them a bit, even though it's the fault of the NME not CC.
I'm not making myself very clear today :D
I mean this was before Myspace etc. and, to the best of my knowledge, the first thing anyone heard of them in the UK was the initial demo that the NME salivated over.
what I meant was when "Last Nite" came out everyone started coming in their pants about the Strokes. I think "Last Nite" came out in 2002 but "Is This It" came out in 2001.
So essentially the album had kicked about for a while but the hype seemed to go NUTSO when Last Nite came out. And suddenly everyone loved the Strokes.
(PS I was drinking heavily both abovementioned years so my perception of events may be blurred somehwat)
Album comes out - a few people like it
Single comes out - everyone loves it and buys album
Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
What came first, the hype or the fans?
and slate the band only if they're rubbish.
but the modern nature of hype is implicit in such a backlash. If White Lies were operating at the same attention level as Fear Of Flying they’d be just another set of Joy Division/Bunnymen influenced doomsmiths with echo pedals and easy to dismiss, but that they’re being heavily lauded and presented as something new and exciting when Editors still exist is going to stick in people’s craw. Similarly when it looks like they’ve been especially prepared for some time for appearing heavily in Ones To Watch lists rather than it appearing natural – Florence & The Machine were being touted eighteen months ago, Adele had been Jack Penate and Jamie T’s soulful singer-songwriter mate for ages before the tastemakers caught up with her.
1) it depends who is hyping the band and whether there is an agenda (being seen to be with an up and coming band, e.g. the ridiculous situation of tabloid showbusiness editors going off to a gig for the first time in ten years just so they could casually mention they saw the arctic monkey/white stripes the night before) to it or obvious payola (xfm playlists)
2) some bands do deserve the hype backlash as they have allowed their PR companies to mass market and overexpose them to the point of indifference from the general public. Well perhaps this is management's fault but the band should be aware of what their representatives are doing.
White Lies are plainly calculated and derivative and have amongst the worst lyrics in UK music right now:
I broke down in horror at you standing there
The glow from the moon
Shone through cracks in your hair.
I shouted with passion,
"I love you so much"
But feeling my skin, it was cold to the touch.
You whispered "where are you?"
I questioned your doubt
But soon realised, you were talking to God now
Ehhrrrmmm...a fourteen year old could write better.
I often view something that's getting hyped to kingdom come with a certain level of scrutiny. For example, if I heard something like White Lies just off my own back, completely random discovery, I'd probably think "They're not bad for what they are" but knowing that they're being pushed as the next this and that, I just find myself thinking "What's all the fuss about? They're nothing special"
It's not very often I find myself really liking something that's uber-hyped cos I rarely see why they deserve the attention.
That's being promoted very heavily...
But then, Animal Collective are cool..
By us and by people on blogs. They're not splashed over two pages of a broadsheet newspaper or subject to lengthy pieces on the BBC News site or in session with George Lamb (god, can you imagine the interview?) They've got a page of the NME in a slow week for new releases. It's like something like Deerhunter - I've seen them dismissed as overhype because they're on P4K and these boards all the time, but where else are they ever covered?
It's naive to think Deerhunter and Animal Collective have less publicity carried out on them than other bands. It's on the blogs you read because the blogs you read cover the bands you like, rather than because it's an underground grass-roots phenomenon.
I think indie people use 'hype' as a stick to bludgeon the mainstream with, and ignore the fact that most of the bands they know and love have publicists, promoters, pluggers, ad campiagns... and if they didn't, odds are you wouldn't know about them.
If Animal Collective are a huge hype band, why aren't Edith Bowman and Gordon Smart pretending to like them? There's hype ("I like this, I'm going to write about it" times several hundred) and there's 'hype' ("You'll like this, and I'm going to tell you why" times several thousand)
I still say that's a double standard.
I don't even much like Animal Collective but the difference is obvious to me.
From what I've heard off the new album it's good, but I'm not convinced they're the second coming like everyone seems to be convinced they are. I'll have to give it a proper listen though to be able to judge properly. Their earlier stuff has always sounded alright to me, but again nothing to really shout about. But at the end of the day it's just my opinion.
With AC they're being promoted mainly by word of mouth instead of being shoved down everyone's throats by the media, which to me isn't quite the same thing
through years of, erm, being brilliant. They deserve the attention. It's in no way comparable to a new band being trumpeted by every magazine around simply because they've got some money behind them. Though I suspect John knows this already...
My point is: a lot of people seem to consider publicity to be 'hype', but at the same time are blind to the fact that bands they consider cool use exactly the same mechanisms.
And I think bands have to take for responsibility for what their PR people say about them (even if they've surrendered control of it - they have to take responsibility for that decision too).
I mean I guess there's also a difference between genuine hype and "created" hype. What I find interesting about a lot of the hotly-tipped new acts of the year is nobody seemed to mention them before the PR machine got into swing - I mean if you take Arctic Monkeys and, to a lesser level, Danananakyroyd, you'd hear people talking about them who genuinely liked them on DiS and other places for months and then a while they managed to kick on but when an indie band starts getting hyped despite nobody on the indie scene having heard anything about them the whole thing does seem to come from marketing from the off rather than genuine affection.
I don't think it's fair if it's a genuine groundswell of people writing about a band because they really like them. The problem is there's pretty much no way of telling which is which a lot of the time, and quite often the lines become blurred - a band might get some good press coverage that they paid for or blagged as a favour (or whatever happens with these things) and this leads to a lot of 'normal' people writing about the band with a genuine excitement about them. Either way, all of this is simply miffling over how a band's being presented and ultimately disliking someone because they've had some press is insanely irrational and stupid. Didn't stop me from detesting Santogold from the off though.
I tend to be skeptical about hyped bands but won't actually dislike them for it (though it might put me off listening for a while). Ultimately it does come down to the basic question of how good the songs are. The problem with the likes of La Roux and Florence & the Machine isn't the hype but that the songs don't seem to justify the exposure.
PS how much do you pay for each Cats in Paris mention? ;)
that'll be five pounds please!
I don't think hype is necessarily a bad thing, unless the artist in question doesn't match it. In which case I think it's fair to point that out. If bands are happy to have their PR machine make them popular they have to deal with what happens if they don't live up to the hyperbole.
I find hype tends to distort judgement - people seem to just go to extremes about hyped bands. Either "Shitshitshit" or "OMG BEST THING EVA anyone who disagrees is gay". E.G in 2002 I heard "Someday" by The Strokes. I was like "How are they so popular? They're so shit GRRR HATE HATE HATE" (in my defence I was 18). I didn't listen to Is This It? All the way through until like 2 years ago, and thought it was quite good. This is a massive side point, but the thing about music today that annoys me is probably hype in that it doesn't allow bands time to develop their sound and we end up with loads of one album wonders.
I'll ill, leave me alone!
anecdotal as it is, it still shows people can be put off listening to an album because of the hype. That said, I think with the Strokes a lot of it did come from the fact that indie had spent about 5 years in the wilderness after Britpop and the NME were desperately looking for someone to make it seem cool again. Weirdly their attempts with Terris, Godspeed You Black Emperor and Campag Velocet never quite worked!
That's why I'm on here instead of work! And with The Strokes I didn't get what all the fuss was about with 'Is This It?' but have found everything they've done since to be way superior.
fortunately linkin park were every bit as good as the hype claimed.
hype in which the guy explained how nobody in the world actually likes the New York Dolls. It might be on the internet somewhere
I do not understand at all how the New York Dolls are revered
to Americans the nature of hype and the difference from for want of a better word 'buzz'. They aren't used to a musical industry that moves as quickly as it does worldwide. Pre-internet with the exposure of the weekly music press, a national radio station and the ability to tour the major cities inside two weeks the UK has always seen bands rise quickly. In the US these kind of things weren't at all possible pre 2001 and now that a review of 9.6 on P4k can see vinyl selling out at independent record stores they are getting the sense of it (This also happened with Funeral's 9.7 iirc).
There's also the situation that their singles chart previously worked as an airplay chart whereas ours is sales based. This led to songs getting tonnes of airplay and then on the day of physical release, straight in at highest position. You'd be fed up of hearing something before it actually came out. The same is true of hype/buzz some of my US friends find it hard to believe that people can get excited about a band months before the record comes out because the singles that are released on major or minor labels generally come out a week or two before the album. Here, all these examples of Franz, Strokes etc all saw coverage in the NME, Radio 1 play and so on months before. They don't have that as such there either. It's changing now with the internet and acts putting stuff on MySpace or self-releasing EP's and so on.
Despite this there's an attitude of talking about a band before they put out an album = hype that has come from PR, label not organically driven (whether it is or not doesn't matter)
It's the 50's/60's cultural revolution - the creation of affluent teenagers in large numbers - that people keep harking back to. Everyone wants to be in at the start, claiming their take on things is the life-changing, life affirming bomb needed. It's the need to stake and a claim and say i was here, what i did and what i experienced, was significant.
there is just to much of it now-a-days and therfore a hell of alot of bands and music gets hyped that either doesn't need it or doesn't deserve it.
Hype always makes me warry because it just smacks of big money being behind it rather than it acctualy being any good. It's more of an annoying buzz that I like to see move out of the way as soon as posible so I can listen and make up my own mind without being shouted at from all angles by people saying its the best band ever! Then moving on the next week...
People like you and I will always seek out new music off our own backs, a large majority of people won't. They need to be told what is good as a guideline. I don't think that's patronising, I have discovered some new bands through various media outlets 2009 tips this year.
Add to this the internet culture we live in where 'first is best'- you HAVE to be writing about things first to be ahead of the game. I remember writing about Little Boots in October and knowing I'd already long missed the boat. Hype and buzz are manifestations of this world of discovery. It's a joy to live in a world where you can literally hear a new band every single day of the year, unfortunately it creates a very disposable environment, this added with P2P devalues music immensely.
Finally, bands get hyped a lot in January as there is nothing else to write about(Hence Animal Collective's current ubiquity).
You should never slate a band for being hyped, it is rarely, if ever their own fault and if in the worst case scenario- they are not very good- then so what? Move on.
Yes, a lot of people don't have the time to seek our new music and need to be told what's good as a guideline.
However music journalists DO have time to seek out new music and its their job to do so. So when every single music journalist for every big publication suddenly start writing about the same four bands that every other big publication is wriitng about (bands that might previousyl have been around for a while without exposure) you have to conclude they probably aren't writing about what they love or what they've sought out but the bands they feel they "should" be writing about as they've been told they're the ones that people in the industry think are good and will be massive.
If music journalists aren't writing about music they love and are only reacting to other music journalists then I don't think they're doing their job very well.
if thats spelt right heheh
But yeah media reacts to media well before any normal music listeners get involved. Then blogs react to more blogs and still no normal music listeners are involved. Then there is a massive what looks like an inevatable love in for a certain few bands that the media have been going on about. Then as thats all people see in the media the whole time most of them just go and buy and listen to that.
Fair enough people might enjoy it but I'm not sure its healthy for music in general that such massive hype exists for these little few when there is so much quality around.
Tim talks too much about this very issue here: http://drownedinsound.com/community/blogs/4111128
issues explained far more succinctly and indepth than I could ever hope to
...but it means that one journalist or more likely, PR flack, ultimately starts the bandwagon rolling and all the others jump on to it for fear of missing out. Little Boots is a classic example - no disrespect to her, but she's not doing anything that distinguishes her from dozens of similar acts and it could reasonably be argued that her cohorts who were in Dead Disco and are now Video Villain are much more innovative and interesting. Yet the powers that be decree that Little Boots gets the promotion.
It's just a matter of the right word in the right ear at the right time I guess.
a bunch of pluggers and PR people getting a load of money from a major label and 'creating a buzz' in marketing speak innit? I never pay attantion to hyped bands cos normally its just part of the marketing campaign, done cleverly so that kids don't notice that thei taste is being dictated to them
The whole music industry is run by a small group of back-slapping knobbers in suits, so don[t trust anything you read or hear. it's all bollox.
it might have been like that in 1985, but definitely not now. the men in suits have even less clue how to market a band than anyone else! you can't just throw money into promotion and expect it to automatically sell records these days. all the "buzz bands" mentioned here are loved by the indie stores and that's where the "hype" starts, so it's normally pretty well deserved.