What about the elephants? (or: where do love songs feature in this musical progressiveness malarkey?)

I think love songs are wonderful, really.

And the greatest love-song ever IMHO = Aaliyah's 'One in a Million': the perfect synthesis of modernity/feeling. So it can be done, it's just pretty hard to do.

But then again I am not too impressed by this new/old the past=the future devide that has been haunting ILM lately: I always liked the Rolling Stones and Rave at the same time.

It's a great track though, at once super-danceable and indefinably melancholic, like all the best disco.

1. I (think I) do know what you're on about, insofar as you're saying that you like love songs, and music that moves you; and insofar as you're saying that you are not satisfied by the 'ILM canon' as you roughly sketch it here.

Are people still writing love songs? Yes. Leaving aside everyone else, I have written barrels of love songs in the last two years. I forgive you for not being interested in them.

2. I don't quite 'know' what you're on about insofar as the new records that you and the other lads are on about, I don't really know. When I've heard them, I've thought they were rubbish - naturally.

I think I agree with you. But I agree with you "without reservation" - without saying "But hey, Air make great love songs" or "But we must pay close attention to the innovative and important works of Autechre, Air, Daft Punk et al, as well as respecting tradition as you suggest".

I DON'T think that Air make great love songs - or great anything. I think they're rubbish. I DON'T think we should pay close attention to the innovative works of Autechre and Daft Punk; I think they're rubbish too.

In that sense, from your point of view I probably *agree with you too much*. I am *not the sort of person you want to have on your side*. Perhaps that, after all, was what you meant by worrying that only I would understand you.

Agreed with the general point Omar seems to be making - that romance and innovation combined often creates the best of all possible worlds. For me (and in stark contrast to my actual relationships) love songs tend to work brilliantly when delving into the unreal/alien/fantastical - not just Daft Punk and Air, but also Britney's "Born To Make You Happy", Bjork's "Hyperballad", Basement Jaxx's "Always Be There", Backstreet Boys "Shape of My Heart".

And Omar's totally right about "One In A Million": it's magical stuff, and I can hardly imagine a better *aural* representation of the feeling of the first flush of love. The rhythm always puts me in mind of a fluttery, lovesick heart beating hopelessly out of time; the whole thing reminds me of the lyrics (if not the rest) of The Beta Band's "Round The Bend" - "I felt like I was at ninety degrees to the rest of the world"). This sort of stuff sits happily next to The Smiths' "I Know It's Over" or The House Of Love's "Yer Eyes" or Geneva's "Tranquilizer" or Spiritualized's "Broken Heart" in my affections...

And any proposed modernist/romantic divide would have to ignore a significant proportion of Tom's writing on Freaky Trigger over the last two and a bit years.

A lot of the ILM-approved music involves aloofness from the audience. Hip dance stuff, dronerock, retro indie jangling things, they're all triumphs of style over content, all approaching their music-making - and this isn't a criticism although it's not something I particularly enjoy - with a sharp awareness of their *place* in the scheme of things.

I think writing a lovesong must be a draining thing, not an intellectual exercise, since it should - at least to a certain extent - be sourced from the truth? And therefore it's impossible to retain the pre-arranged composure when singing it.

Omar: 'we' = the collectivity to which Nick D was initially referring, I suppose. (He was... wasn't he?) Anyway, 'we' = us, you & me, whatever. My suggestion of what 'we' should do possibly = advice to you, which you are guaranteed not to take.

But what do i know? I'm the guy who thinks Autechre are The Great Last Soul Band. :)

And Tim: totally on the money with your examples, although I'm not so sure about that Backstreet Boys track. 'Destiny' will do fine though.

Well Omar, you were the one who in a thread about love songs, defended 'Digital Love' on the grounds that it made you feel like being in a club with yout mates going "feeling good mate, yeah rushing!". I mean, that's quite a specific lifestyle/druggy reference! It's cool, but it's not what I think of a love song being about.

As an aside: do love-songs always have to be about another human being? Certainly most Spiritualized songs are about the love of a drug, yes?

Omar: I meant hip stuff within the dance world, not implying that dance is hip. Distraction. And your mistake with Autechre isn't the *great* or the *soul*, it's the *last*.

Kate: when I wrote *a triumph* I didn't mean there's no content at all, just that the style is more important. Yes, an S3 lovesong can be perfectly charming but - and again this isn't a value judgement - surely you'd accept the song itself is less important than the sound, the drive and the style of the band.

And also you picked the very best droney band, yet S3 could never compete against Lou Barlow, Bruce, Lloyd Cole, Shane McGowan, or whoever has dedicated themselves to songwriting. They're a genre band, right? Spiritualized lyrics almost always suck, I don't know much Sonic Boom stuff but surely he doesn't prioritise the words high, in the midst of all that experimenting. And elsewhere you yourself claimed that lyrics are the least important thing, which perhaps reduces your lovesong appreciation claim.

I think my original point was about engaging with the audience.

And Pinefox just to make sure: i trying to pull a Pinefox on you. Although you're right about that advise ;)

I think Tarden is bang on about the way that pop songs construct, rather than simply reflect, emotions.

Yes, he could be. And it scares the shit out of me. The thought that my life-crippling romanticism has been borne from listening to too many Roy Orbison and Smiths records is too awful to face up to. This is what the hated Nick Hornby was saying, more or less, when the guy in his book asked "Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable, or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?". Even if the latter is the more important part of the explanation, I'm not sure I'd have it any other way. And am I even unhappy? I don't know.

I'm not that into love songs. Pop music is good for capturing the fleeting feelings of initial infatuation ("Falling In Love" = "You're pretty cool + attractive enough to sleep with"), but it generally does a very poor job of describing what I would call real love: The long term, workaday commitment to sharing your life with somebody, which probably seems boring to most people. Being 7 years into a relationship, ideas of initial infatuation are less interesting to me.

Does that mean that instrumental music is all style and no content? A great deal of the time, music is *more* important to me in establishing the mood, the emotion of a song, than the lyrics. The sound, the drive, the feel, the mood, the texture- all of that *IS* the very content. To me, *lyrics* are the style over the content, the sugar on the cake. The emotions expressed through the music are far more descriptive to me than any "Yes honey lovely dovey, I love you, doo doo doo" can ever mean. The orchestral arrangements on "Broken Heart" which Tom raised, say more to me about heartbreak and being lovelorn than the cheesey lyrics ever could.

Besides, go home and listen to "How Does It Feel?" by S3 and tell me all Spacemen lyrics are shite.

Without words (even if it's just the title of an instrumental track) you couldn't even know it was a love song in the first place.

It's the definition at stake here, obviously and the "lovey-dovey oo oo" stuff you deride is what was being refered to in the ORIGINAL THREAD QUESTION and the ensuing discussion.

If you wish to redefine the love song OR argue with my perception of space rock, fine, build another thread. I was offering a view on the need for engagement with a crowd (or non-aloofness) when one is performing LYRICALLY MOVING material, that places it at odds with the more cutting-edge musical genres (including drone & space) often praised here. That was all.

Kate: Your argument is cool but it means any definition of a love song is purely personal and subjective (I can easily say Bach's Magnificat is a passionate love song to his god, while Moonlight Sonata is just a casual melancholy distraction, looking at the sky).

Now separately to that, there is a traditional - and primarily lyric- based - definition of the love song that was being followed earlier in this thread, which I was assuming to be an acceptable 'norm' when I posted.

Obviously not. If we're going to take a completely subjective view of what a love song is then debate is moribund since no-one can agree on defined terms. Read back - are you aware that you've attacked very hard, what was a fairly innocuous original statement, whether right or wrong. And not actually entered into a debate with the point I was (perhaps clumsily) trying to make.

Just forget it.

Again, you mis-read - jesus surely you know me better than that? *Build another thread* - particularly from me - IN NO WAY means *leave this one*.

That's it, actually, I'm gone. Squished indeed people.

Actually, I can't think of a single love song which is among my favourites.

spacemen 3 lyrics are cheap though even cheapness can be moving like say 'so hot(wash away all my tears)'. sonic boom is the king of the rock and roll cliche and jason pierce isn't much better as his new song is really not very good. i think he needs a new gimmick because simply adding more pieces to the orchestra backing him up as he mumbles isn't all that interesting.

Another great discussion that has mostly happened without me, so I hate you all, once again. I demand you slow down and accomodate me even when you don't know where I am or if I'm busy. ;-) More seriously -- as many know, I'm a non-lyric person in general, or rather, the lyrics *in and of themselves* do not, will never, and cannot either define a good song experience or more to the point cannot save a song -- a crucial distinction. This is not necessarily what was initially asked, but I think it's a strong corollary.

I love the texture, the slippery feel of sonics, whether we're talking as rough guitars as you want them or pure minimal glitch or gamelan drone or whatever the fuck. I find more melancholy, exaltation, rage and the like in them than I'll ever find in something so constricting, untranslatable and hopelessly ironized (these days) as *language* -- which is perhaps bizarre given that we're all talking here and I'm the editor now of FT and all. But this does not preclude being struck by, being taken by language, the more so because it's not my primary focus -- it sneaks up on me rather than captivates me from the start. It took me several listens, for instance, to actually hear what Jay-Z was saying in "Big Pimpin'," because I was hearing the music and not the speaker (when I did, well, that was a problem ;-)).

So when a love song works for me, it arguably works in spite of itself. The intention may or may not be 'honest' or direct from the start, and may never be. It may be every last romantic cliche ever. But it can work. And East River Pipe can capture that as much as Romanthony's astonishing digital melancholia on "One More Time," a track which to me started out as being incredibly good and now that it's months old feels like a beautiful prayer -- just as much as "Cool Waves" by Spiritualized is now, or even freakin' "I Want It That Way," which I always liked a whole lot better than that Sting-lite "Shape of My Heart" crap, but that's a different thread. ;-)

Now another great love-song on 'Discovery' for me is 'Something About Us', is it about a girl? a boy? a drumcomputer? A robot? Or actually about my daughter who was born around the release of 'Discovery'? The last one of course ;)

and now on to Spiritualized. I'll never go for the complete reduction of "drugs is the love that I'm thinkin' of" *but* I noticed that since Jason quit his medication his songs seem to suffer (most of the new album is, I'm afraid, shite). Strange how that didn't happen when his woman left him.

I would never underestimate or denigrate Tom Ewing as a person. His record collection - which I imagine is large and varied - is another matter.

this would of course be very boring.

still, take the case of one B.Springsteen: the texture of his voice is so grating to my ears that any lofty lyrics re. the plight of the American working-class are lost on me. It just makes me want to throw the radio out the window. And that's just his voice ;)

Again Tim's on the money re. St.Etienne

To Gareth -- hey, if you want to go back in time and beat up Brad Laner and company for me circa 1991 and make them a good act, you're more than welcome to. That would improve the first time I saw them opening for dear ol' Chapterhouse. ;-)

Still, a) St.Etienne not really super-retro, more something like fantasy pop. b) 1st Medicine album = classic.

It's funny that people call 'Digital Love' insincere because it uses "kitsch" disco, synthpop and pop metal sounds. I imagine that they would probably see it as more authentic if it had some more 'proper' love song cliche sounds, like an acoustic guitar or some Hollywood strings.

I agree with most of what Keith's said, as far as I'm concerned french house does love songs incredibly well, something about the warm feel of it all, particularly when Bangalter's involved, see also So Much Love To Give.