QUOTE:
Too many kids see Oasis as something akin to Gods - untouchable, inarguably great - when I suggested to one of my classes that they were in fact shite it was greeted with a genuine gasp, like I was uttering some kind of heresy.

Where on earth do you teach, 1996?

QUOTE:
The point is that their fans didn't need to put any thought into it at all, because the whole point of that look was that you could buy it ready-made off the peg from any high street sportswear retailer, whereas with the whole Strokes thing you actually needed to think laterally and raid some vintage or chazza shops

I find that an odd statement coming from a critic who makes a big deal of the democratising effect of punk. I really don't see what is cool about seeing a band and thinking 'ooooh, I want to dress like them.' That's the opposite of cool, surely?

I think Oasis may well still be revered - it's amazing how many kids take on the supposed wisdom of their elder brothers and, increasingly, even their parents. If the kids Neil's teaching have a particular set of tastes and mix in particular musical circles Oasis will be revered as "elder statesmen". It sickens me, but I'm sure it's happening. We forget how few "we" actually are.

The great thing about Neil's original post is that he's nailed the worst of all classes.

I've no problem with Nico having read the NME in the 1990s - it may not have had a Penman or Morley, but even then it was comparatively varied and readable, though it's not something I'd ever get nostalgic over.

QUOTE:
Oh my fucking god Pan Tau, you've got to be kidding. Are you Robert Elms or summat?

Well, that's my argument thoroughly demolished, Mr Kulkani. If that response reflects your usual method of teaching, then I'm not surprised that ver kids beg to differ with you.

Mind you, I'm taking a rather more global view of things here. This thread is a bit parochial (something which the opening post did not qualify).

The_Liquidator wrote:

QUOTE:
The point is that their fans didn't need to put any thought into it at all, because the whole point of that look was that you could buy it ready-made off the peg from any high street sportswear retailer, whereas with the whole Strokes thing you actually needed to think laterally and raid some vintage or chazza shops

I find that an odd statement coming from a critic who makes a big deal of the democratising effect of punk. I really don't see what is cool about seeing a band and thinking 'ooooh, I want to dress like them.' That's the opposite of cool, surely?[/quote]

I think you've missed the point. You couldn't buy The Strokes look off the peg from JD Sports (or indeed your local goth-metal emporium) even if you wanted to, so if the way The Strokes looked excited you, it forced you to think for yourself a little bit and experiment. Most people ended up with their own individual version of it, because you couldn't just replicate it exactly. That was a very positive development.

(I'm not sure I am "a critic who makes a big deal of the democratising effect of punk" anyway. I have very mixed feelings on all that. But that's another discussion.)

Great thread, and I concur with almost all of what's being said about The Strokes.

Destiny's Child is a fair shout for a "damaging band" – they kicked off RnB's frosty detachment, the whole 'look but don't touch' style of RnB feminism. Its a shame as their music is, in places, stellar.

I think it's harsh on Radiohead to blame them entirely for Coldplay et al. Admittedly, Radiohead showed wallowing in miserabilism could shift serious units, but their music in places is pretty good, even disassembling their own mythic status on tracks on tracks like "Pyramid Song" or whatever it's called, that really minimal, awkward ballad. Whatever Radiohead did, they did so with a certain degree of nuance and sincerity.

I think Oasis is probably it, even though I've stuck up for lots of their tunes in the past. But there's no denying how backwards looking they are, eschewing several decades of Brit-rock as essentially an arty, sometimes camp phenomenon.

By the way...

Pan Tau wrote:

QUOTE:
Far more damaging than Coldplay and even Arctic fucking Monkeys has been the corporate R&B and Hop Hop scene. At least the Coldplay gang write and play their own music.

How on earth is this a point in Coldplay & co's favour? It means they don't even have the Nuremberg defence.

Completely agree with what DD and Pan Tau have said about hip hop/r'n'b. Bang on the money.

"Well, that's my argument thoroughly demolished, Mr Kulkani. If that response reflects your usual method of teaching, then I'm not surprised that ver kids beg to differ with you."

Well, of course it doesn't reflect my usual method of teaching. I'm not at fucking work here am I? And I wish the kids would beg to differ more with me to be honest. The reason I said 'Robert Elms' is because whenever I hear anyone bemoaning the current state of hip-hop or r'n'b I always think - hold on a sec, somewhere along the line you just stopped listening didn't you? So come on - tell me what was the great r'n'b of 1999 you hold in such high esteem? The idea of r'n'b or hip-hop being seperate genres is kinda bullshit now but so's the idea that since 1999 there's been no good r'n'b singles. I suspect you see album-length-quality as the sole criteria for r'n'b's health, in which case I heartily agree there's been very little as consistently hour-long good as 'One In A Million', 'Writing On The Wall' or 'Fanmail' since 2000. But if you've spent this decade ignoring records by Ciara, Amerie, Beyonce, Chante Moore, Mary J., Usher, Chris Brown, Rihanna, Alicia Keys more fool you and if you can't hear r'n'b in all kinds of things from dancehall to reggaeton to b-line then I don't think you've been following things properly. Mariah Carey & Leona Lewis aren't the only r'n'b story of this decade.

"Mind you, I'm taking a rather more global view of things here. This thread is a bit parochial (something which the opening post did not qualify)."
I admit that, s'just that in terms of causing damage to hip-hop/r'n'b's forward-motion I'd earmark Fiddy or Xtina as being way more harmful than Destiny's Child in terms of fucking up people's perceptions of those genres. Tell me what you think good r'n'b is and what bad r'n'b is and whether or not both haven't ALWAYS existed in the same ratios that they do right now.

QUOTE:
I was having a browse in my local magazine store this afternoon and it dawned on me that these days I don't even browse the racks that contain music publications. 5 years ago they'd probably the only racks I browsed.

There's definitely room in the crowded marketplace for a really good all round magazine that's just interesting to read. Nobody ever cracked it.Melody Maker was always one I read. That and FHM in the earlier days. Nowadays it's just WSC.

QUOTE:
Tell me what you think good r'n'b is and what bad r'n'b is and whether or not both haven't ALWAYS existed in the same ratios that they do right now.

Well, I do think the ratio isn't quite as high these days, but I do agree that to reduce RnB to a golden age and an endless rut is very simplistic. When I try and recall good recent RnB tracks, I don't think there are as many as before, or quite as distinctive. I guess you've got Timberlake (who has done great stuff), but one of the biggest stars, Rhianna, is merely quite good I think.

I've got a theory going that flamboyance in RnB has gone from being camp (ie challenging, provocative, flirtatious) to being ostentatious (frosty, fixed, superior). And it's not a good thing.

And what about 'Voodoo', 'Love Below', 'Trapped In THe Closet', 'Loose', 'Sweet Escape' - to me they're all great albums that couldn't exist without r'n'b, and that's not even getting into what Estelle, Erykah, Gnarls Berkeley, Justin Timberlake, Kelly Rowland, Monica, Ne-Yo have been doing this decade. To blanket piss on all of that seems a bit rich to me s'all. I'd not say that Oasis, Radiohead & The Strokes are all that went on in this decade's guitar music and I'd be equally wary of saying that histrionics is all that's gone on in contemporary r'n'b. And I ask again - what is this amazing pre-1999 r'n'b that is being carefully curated here? Could someone clear that up for me?

Damaging is a difficult term to define really. Presumably it is how many bands have been influenced in a bad way by one source?

I have to admit to be mystified by Muse, Killers and Arcade Fire. I find Muse and Arcade Fire appallingly sanctimonious, chin-strokingly retrograde and really full of false emotion (also how many time and key changes do you need in one track?!! Yuck). The Killers just come across as a sub-standard mid-80's act and their first album was, quite frankly, the most front loaded rip-off of recent times.

Whether any of those three have been particularly damaging in a sea of recent indie/dance mediocrity I don't really know.

I could point the finger at Goldfrapp (who I like a lot) for introducing a wave of shitty half glam/electro dancefloor imitators from Rachel Stevens to Madonna via a load of anonymous DJ productions, for the last few years....

Hold on, where did I say that all soul/R&b post '99 has been shit? I employed exactly the same parameters you did in criticising current rock music.

Having said that, some of those artists you mention have been the cause for the decline in R&B as record corporations started to mass produce clones in the image of Mary J Blige (who once was great) and Destiny's Child (ditto) and Boyz II fucking Men.

You mention Ne-Yo, whom I find incredibly boring because it is impossible to distinguish him from any number of Hip Hop tinged soulsters. It's all gone corporate in the same way the Radiohead-influenced acts have.

Of course there are individual artists who produce quality soul. They represent a small number, whereas in the "golden ages" (and, my goodness, of course there were golden ages of soul) there was a much wider spread of styles and quality.

I could compile a list of 100 outstanding soul songs representing a wide variety of styles from the period of 1970-1978, and regret omissions. I would find it very difficult to do likewise for the 00s.

I have genuinely taken on board the comments on here and would say Radiohead but could there be a mention for The Libertines?

QUOTE:
shitty half glam/electro dancefloor imitators from Rachel Stevens to Madonna

You know, I think the Rachel Stevens singles are so much better than they've got any right to be. I can't think of any Goldfrapp single that I prefer to So Good.