On the other hand, there are indie dance-oriented bands that don’t have a lot to learn. I think Cut Copy is fantastic.

Funny thing is this — there’s a brief 1990 year-end article in Melody Maker I still have around where the writer — pretty sure it was Simon Reynolds, but not positive — looks at all the bands who had already come up in MBV’s wake to one extent or another, and basically says, “There’s some good stuff here folks, but it’s all too obvious. Try listening to some other things once in a while and take it from there.” History repeats, again.

But isn’t this line of thinking partly responsible for the ultra-nichey-ness (not a real word, i know) of the indie music scene these days? Certain types of bands keep going back to their same specific well and don’t bother to bring any new outside influences into their work. I don’t think he’s looking to replace shoegaze with Janet Jackson cover bands, just that they maybe look elsewhere every now and then when seeking inspiration.

And to everyone who suggested that he just not seek out/write about these types of bands, i think that’s a little easier said than done. If you’re a music critic and part of your job is to find new and interesting music, you’re going to have to wade through a lot of crap. And though you may not go on to write about a lot of what you have to listen to, that doesn’t mean you didn’t have to sit through it in the first place. I think that is what’s driving the frustration in the post (which, admittedly, kind of drowns out the tongue-in-cheek aspects).

fair enough, but isn’t it not possible that these bands he’s referring to (wish he would’ve named names but i understand why not) have already been looked at something like a janet jackson song (or a timely equivalent) and decided that the “heart” of the song and what “drives” it doesn’t appeal to them? maybe it’s a flat-out rejection of pop in general– which i think makes for a sad living– but i wouldn’t straight up and down assume that new shoegazey bands have pigeonholed themselves since the age of 12. of course it’s possible that they have, but either way we are painting the scene with too broad of a brush.

I gave a significant amount of earplay to her two pop masterpieces: Control & RN1814. (OK, maybe 3 with most of the Janet album) And I was in the middle of my Intelli-Brit Pop era (Ebtg, Swing Out Sister, Curiosity Killed the Cat etc…I’m still there, actually. Love you Tracey Thorn!). But I gave in HARD to the Jam & Lewis sonic candy.

Janet Damita Jo Jackson could still make a relevant hit if she did just one thing: Go get Jam & Lewis, get angry, mad or depressed about something (start with the ebonics that spew from her Mini-mongrel’s mouth) lock themselves in a studio with a LOT of incense and get to crackin’ on something better that the hodge podge of hot musical mess she’s been spewing. She could only go up from here.

If she could humble herself enough to admit she needed J & L, and ONLY J & L, that would be the best lesson she could give to any indie band: Make good music that people can’t help but love.

Besides, even bad bands and we silly non-”tastemakers” are big boys and girls. It’s laughable to think there’s a danger of us doing what Matthew (or you) say. That’s objectively wrong.

Besides, as a reader, I think that nothing sounds more boring than some universal pact among critics about what you will and won’t do. I imagine if I were a critic, I might work to differentiate myself and find my own voice, but not try to circumscribe the whole endeavor. (Exception: If the critics of the world want to rise up in a common cause, I’d get behind the assurance that Kate Schatz never gets another 33 1/3 deal. That was wrong.)

[perpetua.tumblr.com]

when was this not the case? has there not always been a glut of bad indie bands? have the past 3 or 4 years really been that especially bad?