WhiteLightWhiteCity

Eugh.

Check out the Mint Chicks for an excellent NZ band (albeit one dislocated to Portland at the moment).

Also, there aren't bands like Vampire Weekend churned out every week - that album of what I'm going to very broadly term indie-pop (sidestepping genre arguments mostly) hasn't been bettered since it came out - for sheer tuneage I'd maybe point to Phoenix and Pains of being pure at heart from this year as similarly lengthed and (broadly) styled but without anywhere near the inventiveness and panache.

lament the passing of the age of the tastemaker? You no longer have artificial authority by virtue of special access, deal with it.

"Musicians, much like the textile workers producing Primark jeans, risk becoming, in effect, outsourced labour." Well, not really - of course music in aggregate is becoming increasingly commoditised and monetised and lifestyle-ised to make up for the shortfall in record revenues (a change I should stress is not a choice that any individual has but is rather the net economic response to technological development). But every musician retains the right to attempt to create art that is deeper than merely its use as a commercial tool, which is not an option typically available to Primark textile workers.

Another point to make is that although the easy availability of music (an unmitigated positive) has cut out the middleman (critic) to an extent, there is still the need for a critical filter to navigate the large volume of music, it's just that that filter is more democratic now - however, this change is mostly observed in 'mainstream indie', compared to the situation a decade or two ago. There remains enormous scope closer to the fringes of music for critics to provide an essential pathway to less-knowledgeable listeners. Like anybody, if they are to be of continuing use they will need to adapt to change.

Wonder if they're still doin' Teen Spirit. That was bizarre but strangely awesome at Koko.

I've enjoyed the other interview a few days ago, not to mention the album itself, but Falco has such a way with words I was hoping for a little more exposition on that aspect of the process. Could be just me of course, but I never get that much out of "I wrote that riff really quickly" or "I just started playing the bass and the drummer started that rhythm..." as it doesn't tell you anything, really, and you could be reading about any band. Of course Falco might just be coy about putting too much of a spotlight on the lyrics, though I personally reckon they stand up well (and to be fair he does mention the lyrics a couple of times, just not quite in the places or with the depth that I'd personally be particularly interested in!).

It was a struggle to force myself to listen again, which is never a good sign (with perhaps the exception of the first track). I'd say 5/10, though perhaps I owe it another couple of spins.

Disagree with making it more accessible myself, as I don't think length alone should be considered a particularly strong determinant of accessibility (bloody attention deficit society!).

As for the bitchiness, I didn't mean you being bitchy towards Alexander, but rather being a wuss by not publishing the review in its longer form. Which I can see now is factually incorrect, confusing, and potentially sexist, so I withdraw that.

don't be such a bitch! If the man writes 1800 words of quality, let it be. We have enough of a dearth of longform writing as it is, let every other website write the brief and crap reviews. It feels so silly to cut someone's well-developed thoughts off at the knees for the sake of artificial brevity - I mean, "we were a bit worried non-Sunset Rubdown fans might be terrified by it" - if they aren't fans they probably won't read it anyway! I'm not recommending being wilfully abstruse, just sayin' that when someone hits a home run (in the reviewing sense), let them run with it.

Well done DiS. Don't know if I'm old enough to be nostalgic (if that's even the right frame of reference), but it's so edifying to follow a band that articulates an ideology or worldview as well as the Manics did. As in all arenas, there should be far more copy given over to intelligent and considered interviewees and less to daft prats (read a nonsensically boring interview with Kasabian last week while on the train to work - it's like an interview with a bloody rugby player or something, just vacant truisms and ignorant platitudes).

I'd hit a 9/10 myself, as I think there's room for a more brilliantly realised work (and Krug is one artist who just fills me with the confidence that he will keep delivering mightily), even inasmuch as I consider Sunset to be the finest exposition of the Spencer-axis. Rock.

Featuring AtDI performance... Even a united sounds type one day would be great (seeing as they've really already had a turn at curating).

But wouldn't the words equate to more like a score of 9/10? I know this is subjective between people, but as far as some sort of DiS consistency goes, the number of albums reviewed as 'decent' or reasonably good to get 7s or even 8s makes it seem strange that this receives an 8 when the reviewer is verbally raving about it. Ya know?

Man that's a sweet lookin' shirt. I'll happily take one off your hands.

on cassette? Besides, it came with a free download code, apparently.

Tres excited.

"Getting music for free means it has no value to you..."

What absolute rubbish - is your sense of value really dictated by strategic price imperatives of commercial entities? Do you value an album more if you paid £10 than if you got it for sale for $6? What if you get given it as a gift for your birthday, do you not value it at all? I've heard people complain that they download too much and don't really process what they acquire like they used to with CDs, but that's totally a personal matter which has little bearing on discussion of the model. The music I listen to has vast cultural value to me, and it has absolutely nothing to do with how much I paid for it.

Though I wouldn't necessarily agree wholeheartedly. Well done on emphasising the necessity of the shift from direct payment for recordings to peripheral payment for association (advertising and syncing etc). Narrows down that moral high ground of the "sell out!" brigade (though it's not as if those who make that claim usually have any credibility given that it's not a dilemna they face themselves).

I remain bemused by some of the reactions to unreversible technological developments - there is no point smashing the machines, as digital media is here to stay. Whether the music industry is unrecognisably different in ten years or resemblant of its former self I don't know, but either way the essential nature will have changed.

The positive result of it from my perspective is greater access for all listeners to a barely comprehensible range of music, compared with previous decades, meaning culture in some form is accessible regardless of wealth or position. Higher value products remain saleable at a margin (gigs, deluxe editions, personalised content, advance content, merchandise, high quality audio etc) - is it these non-infinitely copyable elements that should be focussed on for revenue purposes. Those who adjust to the future rather than bemoaning it will likely manage better.

I'm not saying this is all positive, of course, and it may be harder for artists to survive on recording alone than it was in the past. Ultimately though, I think it's a victory for music as an artform - with a wider range of all music widely available, if it becomes more hobbyist so be it. Those with inspiration will always create it.

because it wasn't selling enough or achieving enough attention? Doesn't say much for their supposed artistic purity as per their quote in that article, does it?

But why the fuck do I care if you spent 12 hours in a windowless room? You chose to do that. I don't expect to get paid for reading the newspaper, cooking dinner, making someone a birthday present, or any of the things I might do in my spare time. You can have the 9 to 5 job that plenty of other people have if you want, so I think you should hardly complain about your own choices about what to do in your leisure time.

There won't be any dissipation in the demand from music listeners for music, and sure as there are creative souls about there'll be those to make the music. The problem is working out a fair solution for all involved, somewhere between old-model industry extortion and the free-for-all technological destruction of copyright model.

First of all, I didn’t state that nobody uses p2p to avoid paying for music they have already discovered (this is very probably the majority of p2p traffic), simply that it was reductionist to therefore imply that all p2p use was basic payment-avoidance vis-à-vis genuine discovery.

As for where this leads, well, yes: it turns (if we want to be all financial about it) a non-existent income stream (because I’d otherwise not heard of the band) into an potential income stream through the sale of downloaded material (which does happen!), as well as back catalogue and future catalogue material; not to mention liver performance and merchandise. It also leads on to other bands of a similar ilk (gateway argument) which in turn creates potential income streams for those bands which otherwise wouldn’t exist. The cultural benefits of a broadening of the artistic base are hopefully self-evident.

Which is not to justify all file-sharing at all. However, technology has advanced and in doing so has significantly altered the audio-visual industries in that all of their content is available in some format for free. The technology is so effective that only moralistic arguments provide a genuine imperative to pay, unless those selling the content can offer an improvement on the package that has historically been provided. The fact here is that the industry has been historically clueless and ineffective in understanding and adapting to account for the inexorable change in their market.

The term ‘freetard’ is indeed offensive, as it equates those who argue in some context for freely distributed music with people of limited mental capability. Poor play Mr Phillips.

'A general point too: I'd argue that (generally) people don't use p2p to discover music, rather they use p2p to avoid paying for music they have already discovered and want to acquire.'

Typical of the ignorance perpetrated by the industry side of this debate (and ignorance does come on both sides). This is a cynical attempt to discredit the undeniable positive that arises from the filesharing culture, which is that it allows far more artists from a far wider spectrum to receive an audience, in favour of playing up the stronger moral negative: namely that an album which you would otherwise buy should not be obtained illegally. The truth is that I and many other people use filesharing primarily as a means to discover the music of artists that we hear about but are not familiar with, rather than just to download the new TV on the Radio album which I know I want and am happy to pay for.