http://dolphindentist.blogspot.com/2011 ... ative.html

My buddy thinks we're at the point where alt-rock has no cohesive shape or forseeable direction, he wrote this article, but I'm not sure I agree because there seems to be a prevailing mission statement in the Arcade Fire / Kings of Leon "Pop Mini-Anthem" style...

lol.

Cage The Elephant are pretty much the worst.

but they wear sundresses so well

That song Banditos by The Refreshments was fuckin rad yo

I liked the article.

where are they goin without ever knowin the way??

That was an enjoyable read. The mid- to late 1990's was more or less the period when my musical tastes were forming as well, and I distinctly remember when most of the songs that guy lists were popular. Some of them I loved; some I really, really hated. My mom always told me that, when I got older, I'd love the songs from my youth that I hated at the time, because of the things they'd remind me of. Man, was she ever wrong. Most of that shit sounds even worse now than it did then. "Save Tonight" by Eagle Eye Cherry came on the radio sometime during the last few weeks, and I found myself borderline enraged that anyone remembered it at all.

There are a lot of currently active bands that I still really love, but I feel fairly detached from the "overall picture," as it is, mainly because it's gotten so big and my time to take it all in has gotten so small. Is it even possible for music, or even rock music, as a whole, to move in a generalized singular direction anymore?

The article reminded me of a short story (I wish I could find it, but I read it on the web years ago and didn't bookmark it).

A group of friends are out in the woods at night, and one remarks, looking up at the sky "there are no big stars any more, like Elvis, The Beatles, Buddy Holly, Aretha..." To wit, another responds, "that may be true, but with the internet, we can now see the whole night sky of bands we wouldn't have found anyway else."

I think in the 90s, the marketability of different kinds of music surprised people, and later on in late 90s and 2000s, songs meshed with other outlets beyond radio. For example, the O.C. (yes, the tv show), which used indie/way outside top 40 acts to soundtrack the show and as much as people hate the movie, the Garden State soundtrack exposed people to music they wouldn't have ever heard of. More recently, the Juno soundtrack is an example of this. Combine the ease of access of the internet and other media are, how cheap attention is, musicians can take experiments (Sleigh Bells, Cut Copy) and find an audience.

i blame the internets.

Is there a way to be pro- the internet as a tool for discovering new musicians, but anti- the internet as a tool for every wanker with a guitar to promote himself?

If so, I think that's the position I hold. I've discovered a lot of great music online, but I'm turned off by the complete overload. So I guess I'm pro-pre-MySpace internet.

I think alot of music history, much like art history, get's written later on. people will remember what was really good and forget what sucked, but that doesn't come till like a decade later.

Judging by the not so subtle makeup and image of the bands I've seen on the front cover of "Out Burn" magazine, I'd say that we're going through a late 80's glam period again.

Kings of Leon/Arcade Fire/Mumford being the equivalent of what REM/10,000 Maniacs/B52's/Pavement was then.

Then you should take some comfort in the fact that myspace is pretty much dead in the water. Some bands still use it (in addition to a number of other similar and better outlets like bandcamp) just because of a legacy thing, but it's gotten to the point now where the whole system is so bogged down with garbage ads and oversized background images, not to mention something i just noticed the other day, if you aren't a registered myspace user they limit the # of songs you can listen to in a period of time , that almost nobody uses it anymore. So long myspace .

The Sheila Divine reformed, so yes.

this article doesnt really make much sense.