Monthly Archive

Oh here it goes. Oasis. For a long time I didn’t want to buy their records, even though I loved their work in the mid-nineties. The reason I was so reluctant to give in to their self-proclaimed greatness is because they piss me off as people. However, now I have as good as all their work on an mp3 cd I purchased in Indonesia, which worked out well for me: I didn’t give them any of my money, but I still get to enjoy their best work whenever I want to. Plus, I supported the local Indonesian community, sort of. (All you officers of the law out there, I’m just being funny to attract potential readers, I would never do something like that, no sir.) I know I’m not the first one to say it by far, but them Gallagher brothers say stuff that makes them look so small, it’s hard not to comment on them. So I’ve decided to surrender to my need to rant, if only once.

How petty is it, especially as an artist with some cachet, to call other bands by name and tell the public just exactly what is crap about them. I understand that it is a big part of their shtick, to lash out at certain people publicly, which is probably why barely anybody takes them seriously anymore - not in interviews anyway. I understand they probably wouldn’t be who they are if they weren’t using the media as their personal mud-slinging device, but I’m also allowed to bitch about them when they do. So here is the one bitching session about a Gallagher I’ll allow myself.

In an interview for an Australian radio station, Noel Gallagher comments on today’s British bands and why they are “indie shit”. The reason for that, according to him, is that they’re not trying to make it BIG. Forgetting that not everybody is as hungry for fame as he is. Some people actually just love making the music, or love groupies, or would be unemployed if they weren’t on a stage. Whatever the reason, sometimes Making It Big is not always the main objective. Why that automatically makes the band “indie shit” is beyond me. Seems to me, anyone who does claim they’re gonna be the world’s greatest nowadays - which, incidentally, got tired after Muhammad Ali stopped doing it - is most likely auditioning for Idol.

Franz Ferdinand seem to get a compliment, but then he actually calls them “fucking indie rubbish”. Well, Mr. Gallagher, it seems the rubbish is taking the world by storm. In fact, it looks like the stink of indie filth is oozing through the layers of Popdom more and more. Many popular artists want at least some aspect of today’s indie sound in their own work. Oasis, on the other hand, seem to have peaked a while ago and are watching the new bands - yes, even in their super trendy indie school boy attire - win the chart race. That must sting a little.

We at 100b read many music magazines, but don’t really have the time to read any. Thus, in this installment of How The Music Press Is Crap, we’ll be discussing a two-month old issue of Rolling Stone. (Incidentally, I have no idea why we read these magazines, they just end up forcing us to complain about them in public.)

In September (issue number 982), Rolling Stone reviewed The Cribs‘ second LP, The New Fellas. That worked out rather well for me, since it’s a perfect excuse to talk about my obsessive love of The Cribs. Their debut album (The Cribs) was by far one of the best of 2004 - and I dare you to argue with me. The New Fellas was even better. Most reviews I’ve come across agree with me. And maybe Rolling Stone did too, but I can’t tell.

First, and this makes me irrationally angry, Rolling Stone says that The New Fellas was “released to wide acclaim in England last fall.” No, it wasn’t. It was released on June 20th. And you know where I found that out? The Cribs’ bloody website. The release date is right there for everyone to see, even Rolling Stone writers. This may seem petty, but Rolling Stone is supposed to be the one of the leading music magazines, and they can’t even get this stuff right.

As for the review itself, the writer subtly calls The Cribs hypocrites: “Unlike The Strokes and The Libertines, The Cribs seem to deplore the audience most likely to embrace them. … All of this feels a little cynical and almost dishonest: The Cribs are, after all, pretty goddamn hip themselves.” Leave it to Rolling Stone to be unable to differentiate between being ‘hip’ and just being cool. Like me, The Cribs (if I may speak for them) are sick of the ’scenesters’ and ‘hipsters’. Or, as I like to call them, The Trendies and Beautiful People. These are the people who listen to a band or wear a style because of how it makes them look, not because they actually like these things. We all know them. They infuriate me because it’s so pathetically fake. As the great Holden Caulfield said, these people are Phonies.

The Cribs are definitely not ‘hip’ - has Rolling Stone ever seen them? I’m not sure they even bathe. But they are cool - if not due to their two fantastic albums, then just because they do, wear, and say what they like and don’t care how it makes them look to everyone else.

Just to add to my irritation, Rolling Stone goes on to say: “Sometimes The New Fellas sounds like it was recorded in a tin can at the bottom of the Thames, but the album’s reckless abandon and innumerable hooks ought to appeal to scenesters and squares alike.” Hmm. Is that good or bad? I can’t tell. I sometimes think that reviewers have forgotten that the point of a review is to tell us whether the record is any damn good or not. They’ve become yet another platform for some writer to show how much they know about music history, make some sort of comment on how even a hugely popular artist or band has flaws, and use a song title and/or lyrics as an ironic headline or caption.

Does Rolling Stone even know that The Cribs aren’t actually from London, or was that Thames comment just their way of showing that they’re down with British culture?