So, "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley, then.........

[Penk!]

Matt moaning about sentence length then following it up with a 61 word sentence with several diversions from the point is a little self parodic

I don't think you quite understand the levels to my humour.

there are more than 5 yeah?

At least 61, last time I counted (admittedly I had to put it through level count on MS Word)

Again, what we're getting at here is a mixture of the attitude of the music's creator(s) and the attitude of its constitutent fanbase. Niche marketing is such that you can sell any style to anyone, but if you corner a certain fanbase you'll have it covered. For someone like Missy, I doubt she cared who listened to it as long as everyone got the chance to hear it- and it really is that sort of song isn't it. The sonic equivalent of being chained to a chair until you submit, or at least captulate.

I guess that kind of links back to what Owen said about cowardice; a lot of indie bands are too scared of losing fans and credibility not to adhere to a certain sound and so they just aim it at certain people and are content with just selling to those rather than taking a risk on potentially losing that audience but gaining a larger one who'd allow them more freedom. With the kind of 'hip' pop stuff like, I suppose, the Gnarls Barkley thing, you're getting the best of both worlds because they've managed to establish themselves in the 'pop music it's OK to like' camp and so they can do whatever they like, because they know they're assured of some kind of audience. It actually reminds me of someone like Radiohead, because they've managed to mix commercial potential with unlimited artistic freedom and can probably pull it off.
Having said that I still probably won't like it because they look too pleased with themselves in the pictures.

[Owen]

I guess that kind of links back to what Owen said about cowardice; a lot of indie bands are too scared of losing fans and credibility not to adhere to a certain sound and so they just aim it at certain people and are content with just selling to those rather than taking a risk on potentially losing that audience but gaining a larger one who'd allow them more freedom. With the kind of 'hip' pop stuff like, I suppose, the Gnarls Barkley thing, you're getting the best of both worlds because they've managed to establish themselves in the 'pop music it's OK to like' camp and so they can do whatever they like, because they know they're assured of some kind of audience. It actually reminds me of someone like Radiohead, because they've managed to mix commercial potential with unlimited artistic freedom and can probably pull it off.
Having said that I still probably won't like it because they look too pleased with themselves in the pictures.

Oh they do, to be honest there's a lot of 'stupid ironic pop music it's better off ignoring' about the whole thing. Stupid imaginary concept pop needs to die really soon.

But the song works, so i dont really care that dangermouse is probably a twat.

As threads about songs half the posters haven't actually heard goes this is well up there by the way

[Penk!]

I guess that kind of links back to what Owen said about cowardice; a lot of indie bands are too scared of losing fans and credibility not to adhere to a certain sound and so they just aim it at certain people and are content with just selling to those rather than taking a risk on potentially losing that audience but gaining a larger one who'd allow them more freedom. With the kind of 'hip' pop stuff like, I suppose, the Gnarls Barkley thing, you're getting the best of both worlds because they've managed to establish themselves in the 'pop music it's OK to like' camp and so they can do whatever they like, because they know they're assured of some kind of audience. It actually reminds me of someone like Radiohead, because they've managed to mix commercial potential with unlimited artistic freedom and can probably pull it off.
Having said that I still probably won't like it because they look too pleased with themselves in the pictures.

Oh they do, to be honest there's a lot of 'stupid ironic pop music it's better off ignoring' about the whole thing. Stupid imaginary concept pop needs to die really soon.

But the song works, so i dont really care that dangermouse is probably a twat.

As threads about songs half the posters haven't actually heard goes this is well up there by the way

That's two-thirds of classic threads it's got to contend with as well.
There is something very off-putting about the smugness that comes from 'serious' musicians doing the pop thing though, a kind of assumption that they're automatically going to be better at it than those who do it full-time and have made careers out of writing songs to perform a certain function, so I guess the Sugababes' writing team (just to run with the theme) are always going to be better at doing slightly edgy, catchy chart-pop than any indie types just trying to lark around in between albums. It's this kind of arrogance that means the projects fail as often as not so there probably is something to be said for something as (as I'm led to believe) well-executed as Gnarls Barkley, in that it captures the imagination of both your average pop fan and the 'serious' indie or hip-hop fan. Neither group would be afraid to be seen buying it because it covers all the bases, with the popular video on MTV, the 'ironic' posing that's going to appeal to NME readers and the genuine talent that we'd like to think appeals to us whilst knowing at heart that we're probably going for it because, well, it's pop it's OK to like. It's certainly garnering more interest than, say, Alex James' thing with Betty Boo which had one cover story in a broadsheet somewhere and doesn't seem to have actually had any other interest shown in it. Perhaps it's because there does seem to be a kind of Outkast-y quality to Gnarls Barkley from what I've seen, the slightly leftfield poppy hip-hop types, whereas Alex James is some bloke who was in a band once, but because Albarn was still a credible pop name when he started Gorillaz, and because Gnarls Barkley are credible pop names, they've got their niches ready-made and they've got the know-how and know how to write music to appeal to everyone.

Fucking hell, what is this post about?

[Owen]

Fucking hell, what is this post about?

Deerhoof probably, i gave up after the 5th ironic

[The Write Profile]

Oh they do, to be honest ther
That's two-thirds of classic threads it's got to contend with as well.
There is something very off-putting about the smugness that comes from 'serious' musicians doing the pop thing though, a kind of assumption that they're automatically going to be better at it than those who do it full-time and have made careers out of writing songs to perform a certain function, so I guess the Sugababes' writing team (just to run with the theme) are always going to be better at doing slightly edgy, catchy chart-pop than any indie types just trying to lark around in between albums.

It's this kind of arrogance that means the projects fail as often as not so there probably is something to be said for something as (as I'm led to believe) well-executed as Gnarls Barkley, in that it captures the imagination of both your average pop fan and the 'serious' indie or hip-hop fan. Neither group would be afraid to be seen buying it because it covers all the bases, with the popular video on MTV, the 'ironic' posing that's going to appeal to NME readers and the genuine talent that we'd like to think appeals to us whilst knowing at heart that we're probably going for it because, well, it's pop it's OK to like.

It's certainly garnering more interest than, say, Alex James' thing with Betty Boo which had one cover story in a broadsheet somewhere and doesn't seem to have actually had any other interest shown in it. Perhaps it's because there does seem to be a kind of Outkast-y quality to Gnarls Barkley from what I've seen, the slightly leftfield poppy hip-hop types, whereas Alex James is some bloke who was in a band once.

But, because Albarn was still a credible pop name when he started Gorillaz, and because Gnarls Barkley are credible pop names, they've got their niches ready-made and they've got the know-how and know how to write music to appeal to everyone.

Fucking hell, what is this post about?

One of those sentences exceeded 61 words, impressive stuff. It reads well though.

Quality does come into it to a certain degree, insofar as the more inventive material (and I'm not necessarily talking about Sugababes here) will get noticed. And there'll always be singles which will be more discussed and 'canonised' over time. But you've got to contend with the fact that right now, it all seems very ephemeral. Approaching (or marketing) pop music in a certain way is a necessary evil- it has to get noticed.

Which is the cruel bind we're in. The good may out in the finish, right now we're caught in the quagmire.

As for the Dangermouse thing, the fascinating aspect about him is by and large the music is far more upfront than the approach. As if they have to garnish the openmindedness with smugness or else it won't have a certain cache anymore.

[Penk!]

Fucking hell, what is this post about?

Deerhoof probably, i gave up after the 5th ironic

Re-reading it it looks as though I did as well.

[The Red Heifer]

I still haven't heard this song. Will I like it?

[marios]

I still haven't heard this song. Will I like it?

I think so, but i can't be sure.

Why don't you download it and find out?

[The Red Heifer]

I still haven't heard this song. Will I like it?

I think so, but i can't be sure.

Why don't you download it and find out?

My computer's basically fucked, being as old as the hills and 56k, and any downloading program i put on the old girl causes her to freeze up. So I have to decide whether its worth the effort of hunting it down or not.

[marios]

The song is #1 in the UK and probably doing really good in the US too. How have you managed to avoid it?

[The Red Heifer]

The song is #1 in the UK and probably doing really good in the US too. How have you managed to avoid it?

I'm from Australia . Song hasn't seemed to make a dent down here yet.

[marios]

The song is #1 in the UK and probably doing really good in the US too. How have you managed to avoid it?

I'm from Australia . Song hasn't seemed to make a dent down here yet.

Don't you have a UK/US charts type of program on TV?

Do you use youtube?

[The Red Heifer]

The song is #1 in the UK and probably doing really good in the US too. How have you managed to avoid it?

I'm from Australia . Song hasn't seemed to make a dent down here yet.

Don't you have a UK/US charts type of program on TV?

Do you use youtube?

Not really. The only music shows we have on our free-to-air TV are all Australian made.

I'll just tell my sister to download it from her house. Problem solved

[The Write Profile]

This relates to the extended discussion on irony and timidity in the approach to pop music, but while the song itself isn't going to shatter anyone's preconceptions about music, what I liked about it is that it at least tried to walk the talk. Unlike, say, Jamie Lidel, it wasn't merely lip service to old forms, darting around the surface of the song until it couldn't make its mind up whether its affection was sarcastic or genuine- it gets the tune accross and leaves it at that.

I'm not saying it's authentic, or even that there's absolutely no sense of smugness about its approach (knowing DJ Dangermouse's involvement, there probably is), but there's something heartening about it being essentially revivalist music that, for better or worse, believes in its own revival. That said I've probably placed more meaning on it than it deserves. It's just a fairly cool tune is all.

[Diamond Dog]

You boys had an interesting night!!

[Penk!]

Unlike, say, Jamie Lidel, it wasn't merely lip service to old forms, darting around the surface of the song until it couldn't make its mind up whether its affection was sarcastic or genuine-

I still think people have the wrong idea about the Jamie Lidell, because while there may have been an air of artifice about his singing (personally I don't mind because it's still evident he has an excellent voice), a lot of people miss the fact that he's come to it from a background in electronica and IDM and is bringing a new approach to a genre which, let's face it, had been as good as dead for quite some time. The hint of fakery was just down to the fact that it wasn't a straight soul album anyway, it was more an attempt to modernise the genre and if that meant making it a little more fun and hip then so be it, those are just more modern traits that wouldn't really have worked in the old-school stuff. Lidell, though, is clearly working towards an entirely different aim, evinced by the inclusion of an incredibly inventive song like The City on there. There was always the sense that he was just trying to make the music as good as he could rather than trying to make himself look as good as he could.

[Sleepy]

What's the opinions on here? I fully expect a slating, by the way.

I heard it last night on Top of the Pops and I like it, it's at least something quite interesting. Though I do keep expecting Scott Walker to start singing a duet.

[The Mojo Elite]

Cack!



Now lets never speak of it again.

[Diamond Dog]

Cack!



Now lets never speak of it again.

You're now a complete parody of your avatar.

Wanker.

[Jeff K]

I still have to wonder how much staying power Crazy has. I think it'll be one of those songs that will wear out its welcome after a few months.