Postcards From A Young Man Thread

[Dancing Kirby]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Yeah man, it couldn't be anything to do with the fact that she's writing ace songs now.

Exactly, because she's not. She's starring in ace videos and stage shows.

This suggestion that the Manics would have stood a better chance of pulling off their mass communication ambitions if only they'd written generic electro pop like Paparazzi instead of generic dad rock is pure folly. The masses still wouldn't have cared and we'd all be moaning about how it's a poor man's Take My Breath Away.

Honestly, it's like being back in the playground and telling Vanilla Ice fans to go and fuck themselves and their shit fad all over again.

[Tetsu]

Originally Posted by Dancing Kirby

generic electro pop like Paparazzi

Bingo! There are 296543 acts out there doing way more exciting, inventive or well-crafted electropop than her.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Dancing Kirby

Exactly, because she's not. She's starring in ace videos and stage shows.

This suggestion that the Manics would have stood a better chance of pulling off their mass communication ambitions if only they'd written generic electro pop like Paparazzi instead of generic dad rock is pure folly. The masses still wouldn't have cared and we'd all be moaning about how it's a poor man's Take My Breath Away.

Who was saying that? I wasn't. It's just that 'mass communication' was a ridiculously naive idea in the first place, it was never, ever, ever going to work. This is for a number of reasons, but mainly cos the music industry is now an entirely different beast compared to what it once was, which incidentally renders much of what Cameron33 is saying as irrelevant.

As for her not writing her own songs, I didn't realise that, my bad.

[pennyroyalty]

Originally Posted by Tetsu

What kind of flawed logic is this? Artists woth long careers aren't going to be producing masterpieces all of the time. That doesn't mean their music can't still be very good and relevant. It's just how things are. Nobody expects Bob Dylan to release another "Blonde on Blonde" or even that The Flaming Lips put out a "Yoshiki" every time. Recognizing THB or EMG are superior doesn't take any merit out of the new record, it just shows you're not delusional. The other mistake you make is that, although THB and EMG are clearly superior works, right now I enjoy and want to listen to PFAYM way more than any of those records. Why? Because I get really excited listening to this set of wonderfully catchy songs and they are new, so I'm still discovering things here. The thrill I get out of listening to "Auto-Intoxication" or "Golden Platitudes" is way bigger right now than listening to "A Design For Life" or "Yes", as much as I love them.

you didn't get my point. Bob Dylan wrote an album better than Blonde On Blonde in the nineties as far as i'm concerned. the critical 'consensus' might differ, but that has more to do with contextual importance than musical quality, and it's beside the point anyway. we're talking about a band inspiring passionate reactions. if the best PFAYM fans can say is that other Manics material is clearly superior but it sounds good 'cos i've listened to that old stuff so much, that's not good enough in my view. i don't have to love it myself, but if they're writing music that some fans think is their absolute best then i can respect it. i think Know Your Enemy is a mess but i've seen people here talk about is passionately and think it's peak awesomeness and had their lives changed etcetera. i wouldn't be here if i thought the Manics couldn't compete with their own history, as far as i'm concerned they did last year, and while i can live with not liking the new Manics album the fact that no one here seems to think it's really that good is pretty damning to me.

while it's annoying to like an album and have to see arseholes like me bitching, understand that i don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment of the record, i wish i did. but bear in mind when navigating the negativity here that, Manics forum aside, the buzz on this album generally is very poor.

[cameron33]

which incidentally renders much of what Cameron33 is saying as irrelevant.
nice try :-) Yes the music industry has changed. What I was saying, however, was very simple - that nobody will remember her music in 40 years time. It is not bad pop music, but it is throwaway pop music. Music for this week, this year, maybe next year (as a cheesy throwback song at the nightclub)- that's it. Full stop. I simply objected to the holding up of Lady Gaga as a singer/producer of amazing pop songs. It's simply bullshit. Kids (maybe the wrong term as I mean teenagers who are old enough to begin exploring their personality and music) are still being blown away by THB nearly 20 years on, Abbey Road more than 40 years on. If anyone is still raving about her music in 2020, let alone 2040, I'll personally buy ten copies of everything she's ever produced cos its not gonna happen. I don't dislike her or her music, but you might as well say that in 100 years time Stephen King will be held in the same regard as Dickens or Shakespeare. But he's so popular!
That's all we have been discussing here.

[pennyroyalty]

you guys are to Lady Gaga in 2010 what shoegaze fans were to Manic Street Preachers in 1992.

[Dancing Kirby]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Who was saying that? I wasn't.

It's true, I never thought you were personally doing anything other than sticking up for Lady Gaga as an artist in her own right. Whereas...

Originally Posted by pennyroyalty

great straightforward pop music is Lady Gaga, who is a massively entertaining clusterfuck of fantastic tunes, taking the piss and having lots of sex. the music is synth pop so slick that it kills ducks and destroys beaches. Lady Gaga does mass communication. the Manics sound terminally naive in comparison to that.

I read that as 'you can't be relevant to the masses if you don't sound like Lady Gaga, the height of contemporary pop songwriting'. Parts of the new album sound like latterday Take That, which in itself is not a great thing to be saying in a thread for a new Manics album, but no one will be expecting Gary Barlow's latest batch of big, emotional choruses backed by cheesy strings to flop.

[UEF]

Lady Gaga is my favourite artist since MSP.

[cameron33]

Pennyroyaltyi don't have to love it myself, but if they're writing music that some fans think is their absolute best then i can respect it.
the fact that no one here seems to think it's really that good is pretty damning to me

Strange argument. So because nobody (in their right mind) considers the album their absolute best, you can't respect it?
So let's see, Midsummer nights dream clearly doesnt compete with Shakespeares best work. Bin that then. Beatles, Let it Be? Some people consider it their third best album. But noone considers it their best? Not good enough! What an insult to their fans - bin it. Perhaps I'm making my point in a rather flippant way, but it's late and I'm afraid your argument just seems quite bizzare and misguided. As for me, the fact that most people think the album is decent with some great songs leads me to think that . . . the album is decent with some great songs.

[Bryter Layter]

"the buzz on this album generally is very poor"

I really don't think it is though, hun. Every muso critique I've read so far has been very positive. Sure some of those music writers are old school fans/friends of the band and I'm not sure they come across as objectively as they should so its perhaps best to take the likes of Price, etc with a grain of salt however, there have been some fairly good responses from random bloggers which suggests to me that there is a genuine unbiased enjoyment of the new album out there.

As for the current convo going on about what constitutes 'pop' music and it's ability to reach mass audiences, surely "pulling a Gaga" isn't the only way to guarantee a hit. If it were, it wouldn't explain why bands such as Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Muse, etc sell a shed load of albums and play to sell out crowds everywhere. I think it's a bit redundant these days to assume catchy, danceable tunes are the only way musicians can appeal to the general record buying public. I think perhaps the Manics don't seem to understand this either.

[Tetsu]

Originally Posted by pennyroyalty

you didn't get my point. Bob Dylan wrote an album better than Blonde On Blonde in the nineties as far as i'm concerned. the critical 'consensus' might differ, but that has more to do with contextual importance than musical quality, and it's beside the point anyway. we're talking about a band inspiring passionate reactions. if the best PFAYM fans can say is that other Manics material is clearly superior but it sounds good 'cos i've listened to that old stuff so much, that's not good enough in my view. i don't have to love it myself, but if they're writing music that some fans think is their absolute best then i can respect it. i think Know Your Enemy is a mess but i've seen people here talk about is passionately and think it's peak awesomeness and had their lives changed etcetera. i wouldn't be here if i thought the Manics couldn't compete with their own history, as far as i'm concerned they did last year, and while i can live with not liking the new Manics album the fact that no one here seems to think it's really that good is pretty damning to me.

while it's annoying to like an album and have to see arseholes like me bitching, understand that i don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment of the record, i wish i did. but bear in mind when navigating the negativity here that, Manics forum aside, the buzz on this album generally is very poor.

Ok, I understood your point now. Still don't agree with the passion aspect, though... I mean, I love the Beatles first LP, it's a great record (I get a rush every time "I Saw Her Standing There" starts), but I'm never gonna talk as passionately about it as I do about "Rubber Soul" or "Abbey Road". Another example: David Bowie. Unlike almost 99% of the world (and Bowie himself), I really really like his very first album (yeah, I'm crazy, I know). But there's no way I'm gonna be that crazy about it and think it tops the ones that came out after that.

Not all records are going to inspire many passionate reactions. And sorry, I've seen plenty of people here, myself included, saying they love PFAYM! Isn't that a passionate enough reaction? This record made jump in joy, made me air guitar, made me bop my head with a stupid grin on my face, made me quite melancholic in others... SATT never did that, for example. Isn't that a strong emotional reaction? But, I insist, there's no way I'm gonna be crazy and say it's better than their masterpieces or that it moves me as deeply as some of the more profound works they've done. It's only natural.

Finally, just to close off this subject, I do realize the general reaction to the album has been pretty poor. That doesn't mean a whole lot to me, though. Never has. SATT was pretty well-received (even more by comparison) and to me it's the worst Manics record ever. Lifeblood has MANY more detractors than fans (including the band) and I think it's one of their best ever. Talking about other artists, MGMT's new album has been written off as a mediocre effort and pretty much gone unnoticed and to me it's some of the most brilliant music of the year (not to mention 1000000x better than their praised/hyped to the moon debut).

Edit: Actually, like TheGreatPretender mentioned, the music press reaction so far has been pretty great, hasn't it? Mostly 4 stars reviews! Another element to put this whole discussion into another perspective.

[pennyroyalty]

Originally Posted by Dancing Kirby

It's true, I never thought you were personally doing anything other than sticking up for Lady Gaga as an artist in her own right. Whereas...



I read that as 'you can't be relevant to the masses if you don't sound like Lady Gaga, the height of contemporary pop songwriting'. Parts of the new album sound like latterday Take That, which in itself is not a great thing to be saying in a thread for a new Manics album, but no one will be expecting Gary Barlow's latest batch of big, emotional choruses backed by cheesy strings to flop.

there's a lot of things they could sound like in an attempt to communicate with the masses. they are masses after all. but the Manics haven't been realistic about it have they? we'd have called a lot of this album naff in the nineties and the very special guests were better known 20+ years ago. they don't have to sound exactly like Lady Gaga, but she's one example of an artist who makes them look very passé indeed. from the perspective of the masses, if you guys can't bring yourself to say anything positive about her. if the Manics don't even like computers, what makes them think they have any clue about what the masses want and why are they trying to, er, communicate with them anyway? what are they telling the masses exactly? it's not war, just the end of love? what does that mean, does anyone know? meanwhile Lady Gaga knows the pain of being called on the telephone in the club when she's trying to listen to her favourite song, and has expressed it beautifully.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by cameron33

What I was saying, however, was very simple - that nobody will remember her music in 40 years time.

I'd love to know what your basis for this is? I think people will, but then I don't particularly have a basis for saying that either. The problem is that you are not taking into account that for various reasons, A-list musicians do not have an extended period in the limelight any more. That's just way the industry goes now - People have way more option, they have access to more music than you or I probably ever imagined. It's not about a cluster of bands any more. You compared Love is All Around record sales with Poker face record sales; my friend, between those two records, the internet happened

Originally Posted by cameron33

I simply objected to the holding up of Lady Gaga as a singer/producer of amazing pop songs. It's simply bullshit. Kids (maybe the wrong term as I mean teenagers who are old enough to begin exploring their personality and music) are still being blown away by THB nearly 20 years on.

THB is a pop record? It's mass communication? I think we're talking about something different here. As for the Beatles, I think they surpassed any notion of them 'just being a band' a long time ago!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by pennyroyalty

from the perspective of the masses, if you guys can't bring yourself to say anything positive about her. if the Manics don't even like computers, what makes them think they have any clue about what the masses want and why are they trying to, er, communicate with them anyway? what are they telling the masses exactly? it's not war, just the end of love? what does that mean, does anyone know? meanwhile Lady Gaga knows the pain of being called on the telephone in the club when she's trying to listen to her favourite song, and has expressed it beautifully.

I'd say that's pretty much nail on the head right there.

[pennyroyalty]

Originally Posted by cameron33

Pennyroyaltyi don't have to love it myself, but if they're writing music that some fans think is their absolute best then i can respect it.
the fact that no one here seems to think it's really that good is pretty damning to me

Strange argument. So because nobody (in their right mind) considers the album their absolute best, you can't respect it?
So let's see, Midsummer nights dream clearly doesnt compete with Shakespeares best work. Bin that then. Beatles, Let it Be? Some people consider it their third best album. But noone considers it their best? Not good enough! What an insult to their fans - bin it. Perhaps I'm making my point in a rather flippant way, but it's late and I'm afraid your argument just seems quite bizzare and misguided. As for me, the fact that most people think the album is decent with some great songs leads me to think that . . . the album is decent with some great songs.

there probably are people who think the works you've mentioned are the best. you might think they're not 'in their right mind' but that's not the point. i accept it's all subjective so i look for the passionate subjective responses to justify why the Manics spent a year doing something. i'm sure they weren't trying to make their, i dunno, fifth or so best album. so yes PFAYM may not be offensively bad, but i think the band's time could have been better spent.