the strokes are future of music i sez

Personally I feel it is nothing less than scandalous that excruciatingly diluted imitation pop like the Strokes are allowed to gain any respect or influence when criminally overlooked real pop outfits like Yummy Digestive are criminally ignored. The appalling failure of their limited-edition-of-12 masterpiece of an 83rd album (although all the preceding 82 are essential components of any self- respecting, honest record collection) "Hold Me Tight Tonight All Right" to sell a million copies in Boston alone, never mind Ladbroke Grove, is criminally scandalous. Doubtless few "females" would faint at the sight of these stocky, bearded 48-year-old skilled craftsmen from Poughkeepsie, but few real pop fans could fail to faint to the undying nimble guitar counterpoint on anthems such as "Baby Don't Baby Me," blissfully reminiscent of Tommy James and the Shondells' criminally ignored worldwide multi-million seller "Crimson and Clover" and the Marmalade at their criminally overlooked peak. Be honest and forgo noise, anarchy and sex in favour of rootsy ale and sturdy girdles of stout hession. The Strokes are a joke next to the Gaudi construct which is Yummy Digestive. Plenty of copies available at Minus Zero.

I go listen to music all the time in new York and I've never even fucking heard of the strokes. I think they were made up by the same person who made up "jon".

They do exist, I heard them today (although I wish I could say that they don't). I can't believe any human being would want to listen to The Strokes over The French Kicks.

What's the matter with you guys? The Strokes embody everything that rock and roll should be; fast, sexy, cool. And they're 'criminally' underrated on theis board by the looks of things.

But they're not though, that's the thing; their music is tiresome, and they are the living embodiment of 'studied cool', as it were. Come on, do we really need another 'New York' (not as in simply originating there, but supposedly 'being' NY, the sleaze, the glamour etc) band? If so, why? Because from where I'm sitting, they're just a pointless waste of plastic.

This entire thread is simply a manufactured ploy to get an irate response out of me, and it's not going to work, because I have already said everything I *need* to say about the Strokes, and I am no longer going to give them any of my attention or energy.

The Strokes are to the Velvets/NYC punk what Oasis are to The Beatles. End of story.

NEXT!!!

The "hey-all-the-really-cool-people-dig-the-French-Kicks-instead" line is almost as annoying as the Strokes hype itself. What in hell is meant to be good about the French Kicks?

Aaaarghhh!!! The NME this week - anyone seen it?. Not only are the strokes tour of the week and single of the week, they also get a glowing live review which humourously mentioned there were no cries for an encore 'because this blast of rock was such a shock' or something along those lines. Not just cause they're not very good then? Never mind, I'm thinking of running a sweepstake on when the NME starts to knock them down...can't be long now.

Bill

I haven't heard them yet, but I REALLY want to like them.

Hey! Someone mentioned French Kicks. OK, I'm guilty of hyping them as much as the NME hypes the Strokes, but the difference is, I have no power, and I'm not paid for the priviledge. (though I may actually be guilty of hype-mongering, as I think I've just convinced my friend who works for The Face to dress them up in pretty clothes and write about them, cross fingers...)

The thing that really gets my goat about the Strokes, even more than the hype, is the fact that they name-check all sorts of things I really, really love - The Velvets, the Stooges, Television, NYC art-punk, Wire, the NY Dolls - when really, all they are doing is playing a very bland, very unexciting brand of NJ bar-band rock'n'roll, dressed up in KEWL garagepunk attire. (Think: pub rock, but working class yank instead of working class Essex.)

What's exciting about the French Kicks is that they really *do* capture the spirit of the above bands that the Strokes always namecheck. Sure, they're also trustafarians playing at being Lower East Side ragamuffins, they're also retro and somewhat derivative of the Velvets/Television/Wire canon, but you know what? They just do it better, and with more skill and more class.

Why am I still *on* this Strokes thread? I said I wasn't wasting any more thought on them!

I wrote one word about French Kicks on this board, it was in a Strokes discussion, and I do enjoy FK's recent six-song EP "Young Lawyer," for its energy, variety, melody, swagger. They aren't going to take over the world like that other Lower East Side bunch, they're still growing, and the eclecticism on the EP (a bit Television, a bit Kinks) could prove to be a case of a group in search of a sound or a direction, but I think they're worth watching.

Now Tom, I never said anything about coolness being a factor. I'd say "I could give a fuck", but none of you would believe me. But here's something I really don't understand - what leads people to think the French Kicks are 'trustafarians', ie pretending to be much poorer than they are? I don't get the impression from any of their records that they intended to come off like basement dwellers anyways. Their songs are poppy as hell. Sure, some of them probably do have money. I should mention while defending them that Josh Wise went to Princeton (where I'm sure he met a lot of prospective young lawyers) and used to DJ at the radio station I now work for, and his parents may well be rich - I don't know. But does that mean that he shouldn't write a song like "Young Lawyer"? I just really like their records, plain and simple. I didn't think socioeconomics were a factor.

Yay, this thread has turned into a thread about French Kicks, that makes me happy. Scott - I don't find the eclecticism on the YL ep bothersome- it doesn't seem like a "group in search of a sound or a direction" to me, because, as ecclectic as the influences are, they still meld them into a distinctive sound. They do wear their influences on their sleeves, but 1) they are good influences to have, 2) they do them well, and 3) as stated above, they do pull something original out of the sound.

Dave- I brought up the FK "trustafarian" thing to respond to a criticism no one had even made yet. Half the reason I dislike the Strokes is because they have *bought* their way into things that their dull, boring, unobtrusive music does not deserve. Before anyone could turn around and say "well, FK are middle class, wealthy, Ivy League attending kids, too," I pointed it out myself.

I don't want this to turn into another patented ILM discussion about class and which class has the patent on Good Music. Because the tradition of avante guard, interesting, "indie" music in NYC has long been written by people who are of the wealthy, middle class background to be able to *afford* to write music without worrying about the financial rewards they hoped to gain. Lou Reed, Television, Sonic Youth - right up to Jon Spencer, Jonathan Fire*Eater and all that lot - you don't get the freedom to *make* music that you love without having to worry about making money off it, unless you have a financial stability, and therefore come from a certain class.

Being Rich is not the argument against the Strokes. Their overwhelmingly average music is the argument against the Strokes. The problem is that their money has BOUGHT them privilidges that their talents do not support. Having money does not preculde having talent.

French Kicks are middle class, they are well educated, but ultimately their music is intelligent, and it appeals to me. I haven't decided if the lyrics to "Young Lawyer" are homage or pisstake, but as my boyfriend is a young lawyer, it does amuse us intensely.

Right, enough of this business. I am off for a walk on Tooting Common. Dead pharoahs, right in the middle of Sarf London, what in the world?

not sure if i'm more mystified by the nme eulogising such thoroughly old-fashioned 1 dimesional clothes horses or the vitriol their priveledged backgrounds provokes here. the joy of the strokes is so blissfuly uncomplicated: pretty boys+trashy aesthetics+good cosmetics. while i agree the trappings are so derivative as to be invisible who could be churlish enough to deny a band capable of provoking bitter rifts between late twenty something indie girls over whose the cutest stroke. oh you fancy them .admit it.

The most annoying thing is... they're *NOT* actually attractive. If only I *could* fancy one of them, then they might be almost redeemed. But I just don't see anything appealing in them at all.

And you have missed the point entirely with the "priviliged backgrounds" thing. How many times do I have to say it in how many different ways before you clods understand? I don't hold their "priviliged backgrounds" against them, I hold their SHIT MUSIC against them!

Add The Strokes to the list of bands that I am SOOOO determined to like based on the relentless beating they get on here.

patrick: well, that's a poor reason to like a band! ;)

besides, i don't think they're taking much of a beating, and in our reviews, tom and i pretty much say that they're alright, but not life- altering. problem is they're being "sold" as life-altering.

Fred : I wouldn't know 'cause no one has tried selling them to ME. All I know about them is that Robert Christgau gave their record an A-, and I only know about all the other alleged hype secondhand from ILM.

I simply cannot take it anymore! I can't find any online pictures or music clips of the Strokes, and I don't care how bad they are I have got to check them out now!!! Are they like, say, D Generation??

I quite like The Strokes. They've got a nice chugging Vevets-y rhythm and "Last nite" really swings. No, they wont change the world and I dont know about this whole marketing thing Fred is on about. They're modest.

Okay, I've napsterized a Strokes song. They sound like a band trying very very hard to capture the sound of early VU (even to the point of the mix sounding horrible), but doing Silver Jews covers instead. Eeerrgh. Funny that the British press is hyping this utterly nowhere band by invoking some mythical "New York Rock" meme - I mean, NYC's worst-kept secret for years is that the rock scene SUCKS (for lack of affordable rehearsal space, cost of living, indifferent venue owners, high club turnover, etc. -- If Andy Warhol tried to open his Factory today it would have to be in Bushwick.) There ARE many many bands doing more interesting things (to me) than these guys. But I guess they don't fit w/what NME thinks NY ought to sound like.

What NY bands, Tracer?

Ok, so if they're like the Velvets (down to a bad mix), then these guys are supposed to be taking over the world?? Since when is that kind of sound ever been popular to a mass audience? I don't know what's up with the British press, but here in the States I haven't heard a peep.

The Sweet Sweet Bulbs, The Rodgers Sisters, Itchy Trigger Finger, Dayna Kurtz, Khan. And each one sounds different from the others so a big Bronx cheer to NME and their phantom "New York sound", half-remembered from a mixtape ca. 1979.

i think the fact that so many people care re: the strokes (one way or the other) is fascinating, and indicative of a wider indierock malaise. is there a perception that they're "rocknroll saviours" whatever, because there's nothing else (ie. they'll do).

is this the first american indierockband the british press have got behind since the anti-american britpop years? (mercury rev/flaming lips presented as artier. albums not bands, with the stokes, band as brand, not records?).

the strokes make good/solid records. they make records i never want to listen to. i have never heard french kicks.

Good solid records? They have released one (1) EP so far and the second is coming out this month.

well, admittedly, i've never actually heard the strokes. i wasn't sure it was necessary

Hey, I started The Strokes bashing two weeks a go on my DJ Martian, weblog, what took you so long to catch up!

The article was knocked up the day after The Strokes front cover,7th June - indicating my thoughts at Why The Strokes? a band so average and undeserving get this front cover treatment [although some people have picked out why I dislike them already]

I also challenge NME's take on rock music and identify the most happening and creative rock bands at the moment/ over the past few years and ask why the NME are ignoring them, answer - they are pig shit ignorant and know naff all about contemporary rock music, witness their useless rock and metal sections at NME.com absolutely useless and so completely lacking in knowledge and insight. [Have a look who is on the front cover NME next week - for utter proof]

Gareth's asserion there's nothing else in rock is wrong, [maybe in NME] - however this is clearly misguided from my knowledge and listening experiences, if you were to read Terrorizer over the past 5 years alot is going on, operating in a totally different orbit completely away from the mainstream.

The article does not go into great depth about the bands I have highlighted as most of of them I have mentioned on my weblog since last September.

NME watch: The Strokes - ordinary retro dullards for sad people trying to recapture the authentic rock and roll past

Sorry I can't let this pass the NME has a new official houseband, like a teacher's pet - The Strokes, from NYC and once again they have backed a music loser not a creative new talent.

My problem with The Strokes are several first off the music - I heard tonight a new Strokes track on Peel - what a lot of retro nonsense the music is so normal, so bound up with the cliches of the sixities like a cross between VU and Doors, the vocalist totally apes Morrison the band's guitar sound is just so rock and roll AVERAGE, at best merely competent. Then their image is so wrapped up the past - the whole package stinks of some "authentic rock and roll" band to reclaim some sort of classic rock from a previous era.

What annoys me most is not only the baffling process of how the NME have picked up on The Strokes but why? - they just do not add anything new to rock music, there is no attempt to bring music forward to be expansive, expressive - you just get an ordinary repacked exercise in retro classic rock.

Take Trans Am a band I admire sure they have strong influences from the past but they have created something new, some expressive and expansive - the Red Line is an awesome album in its intoxicating twisting of different sounds. Trans Am are multi dimensional, multi instrumental, colourful an influx of hundreds of ideas a brilliant shining light in sonic ambition - The Strokes one dimensional, monochrome, dull reworking of the past tied to the narrow past model of authentic live rock.

Did NME put Trans Am on the front cover? No - because they are far to creative and clever for the simpletons at the NME to grasp.

What made me laugh about The Strokes article? the way the article ends "a band like The Strokes only comes along once in lifetime. You should be grateful that they've come along in yours" the most pathetic assertion I have read the NME for some time. Your lifetime is so bound up in not being around over 30 years ago - you sad pathetic NME journalists.

Also what annoys more is the continual ignorance at NME of the most startling rock music of the past few years that I have championed on this weblog bands such as Cave in (Jupiter), Drowningman (Rock and Roll Killing Machine), Minus (Jesus Christ Bobby), Red Harvest (Cold Dark Matter) and Botch (We are Romans) and Satyricon (The Art of Rebellion) - in all their different ways they have sonically reached out and achieved something new.

I would love to meet these clueless NME journalists and challenge them to actually listen and experience the above albums and realise that these bands are amongst the real leaders in innovative rock music at the moment.

Bands as talented as Cave In or Minus should be on the front cover of NME not some retrogressive dull muppets like the Strokes.

The whole process of the NME supporting The Strokes stinks no ambition, no future, no new ideas - just reworking the past a safe conformist wax work model from the past recreated for what? so young NME writers that missed out the sounds of the 60s/70s trying to recreate and live the past. Depressing and Desperate.

The Strokes to me have no relevance to my vision of rock music in 2001, however I can see who they are aimed at a certain type of 16-23 male who knows no better completely unware of the superior existence of bands such as Botch and Minus, content to follow the NME wallowing in the authentic live rock and roll experience of The Strokes, the mystic of the 60s and there from NYC. Pathetic.

Thankfully not all is dead and dull in rock music (although reading NME you would think so), later this year there will be new albums by rock bands that do have creative ambition ..Cave In, Botch, Neurosis, Emperor, Arcturus, Beyond Dawn, Godflesh, Obeah (a band from Northern Ireland who are influenced by MBV/ Suicide), Poison The Well, Sicbay, Taken, Voivod, and possibly Dillinger Escape Plan, also look out for a band from Norway called Virus (a mixture of Taking Heads and Voivod.)

If you want to read about the most exciting rock music - Don't expect to find it in the NME - Instead take out a subscription to Terrorizer. The NME over the past years have missed out on In the Woods, Solefald, Refused, Ulver, Katatonia and Anathema etc.

[Finally my advice to anyone that wants to feel the blast pulse and excitement of rock in 2001 check out Minus their Jesus Christ Bobby album is released in Europe and will be released in the States July 11th on Victory. There is more excitement in any track of this album than The soddin Strokes will muster in their entire lifetime. FACT.]

― DJ Martian, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Sure, they're overhyped ALOT... but so what? It sounds stale and rehashed to all of you, and perhaps to me too, but it's really not a big deal... Hype is what makes the world go round. Was anybody disappointed with 'Second Coming'? And yet you still found a reason to get out of bed this morning... It's only rocknroll after all...

martian, i didn't mean there was nothing else out there, just a perception within the indierock world that there isn't. therefore saviours. there are far worse bands than the strokes. there are far better bands than the strokes.

DJ Martian, as much as I agree with what you say, I was saying it BEFORE you - go check some of my posts here on the "image vs. talent" thread (I think?) from MONTHS ago.

I first hated the Strokes way back in January, the first time I saw them live. So there. This fucking hype by people who should know better is what has turned my mild dislike into a raving WAR. And all by people who should know better- I mean, the NME is questionable at best, but Rough Trade? There went my faith in the last bastion of indie. I have no other excuse but bribery- even the wretched Oasis didn't get this much of a push, and Oasis at least had a movement to springboard off.

The thing that irritates me the most about it, is that the NME's picking up and raving about retro SHITE like the Strokes and Starsailor is going to convince young kids who don't know any better that the "Future" of "indie music" *is* indeed crap like this, and not the vibrant stuff that really is happening in the garages and toilet clubs of the nation. Future musical geniuses will be turned off by the idea of entering the field of "indie" and instead go to record Garage or House or Shed, or whatever it's called. Do we really want to lose the best minds of our generation this way?

Curmudgeonly yours,

Kate, it seems 'the kids' know better than to make boring old indie music. They're leaving that to the older folks.

Oh, I'm supposed to do this ;-) now aren't I?

Kate, it seems 'the kids' know better than to make boring old indie music. They're leaving that to the older folks.

I know you're joking, but that's the whole point.

When I first started making music, my passion was psychedelic music- mind-expanding, textural, harmonically complex music. I got very much into to garagepunk/psych/freakbeat/mod scene because I was entranced by how *futuristic* a lot of that 60s psych stuff sounded. And then I started butting my head up against retrofascists who got upset if you wanted to use a Moog, cause that "wasn't very 60s" and "sounded like Flock Of Seagulls" or something.

Escaping into the indie scene seemed like a liberation- here was music like My Bloody Valentine, Spacemen3, Stereolab, Primal Screamadelica - music that, although it was rooted in the psychedelic garagerock of the past, it still sounded like it was BEAMED IN FROM THE FUTURE.

So it frustrates me no end now, 10 years later, butting up against that exact same attitdue that I hated in 60s enthusiasts in the fucking INDIE crowd. This retro-fetishing crap like the Strokes and Starsailor, and yes, even Belle and Sebastian (though I must admit they simply do their retrofetish with more style, craft and aplomb) does NOT sound like it is beamed from the future. Even the stuff that is raved about by non-indie kids- Daft Punk and Air- it sounds as if it was BEAMED DIRECT FROM 1983!!!

This is not what "indie" was supposed to be about. No wonder The Kids have deserted indie. Maybe I should, too, but you know what? I still haven't found anything better than the sound of a guitar. I just wish people would continue to do more *with* them. Or that the people who *are* doing more with them would get some more credit.

In the mid-1980s I was very into indie; when the papers, and friends of mine, started raving about bands like Spacemen 3, Loop and the newly-psychedelic MBV, I thought "this hippy nonsense isn't what indie's supposed to be about... how can we expect anyone to be interested in indie if they get fed this bilge". It's no wonder that 'the kids' lost interest in indie over the course of the 1990s. Except, oh, they had already lost interest in indie over the course of the 1980s.

I broadly lost interest too, and I'm very glad I did, because I've heard a lot more interesting music than I would have if I'd just stayed in the pub back rooms of the UK indie scene for the last thirteen years or so.

More than that even, although I see quite a number of indie shows and even enjoy a fair few of them, I am left with the feeling that the 'indie scene' is becoming like the folk scene, or (perhaps) the trad jazz scene before it: specialist and closed, with an aging and obsessive audience sprinkled with a few eccentric youngsters into the old people's music.

On one hand, I *wish* you were correct, Tim, because that would mean that if I stumbled into the audience of a Coldplay or Muse gig, I would see nothing but 30-something geezers who will DIE soon. But, unfortunately, I see loads of KIDDIES listening to The Strokes.

On the other hand, I've been to shows by indie rock heroes who have been around for ages, and felt like the youngest person in the room! But I think this has more to do with the age of the band, and their fans growing old with them, than the idea that indie is becoming Music For Parents.

And finally, I am stealing a quote from another thread, because I thought it was so good. Matt from Sarah/Shinkansen sez: "How come if you are into only jangley guitars, then you are narrowminded, while if you are into only hip hop, then you are 'a specialist'?"

Which is, i suspect, where the strokes fit in. i rather imagine that when they play heaven next thursday there will be a conspicuous contingent of "eccentric youngster" in evidence & frankly rather them than coldplay. of course indie is a ghetto in the last throes of entropy but i think it might be rather fun to have a modern lovers tribute act in the top 10.

I think we're having the same experience in indie shows, Kate, and it seems the "kiddies" are into straightahead rock like the Strokes, Coldplay or Muse, the oldsters are at the little indie shows. Maybe I'm just going to see the bands I've grown old with, but (with a few exceptions) I don't think that's true.

Incidentally, Muse and Coldplay both have significant Devonian elements, I'm sorry to say. Perhaps you should try selling books to them?

And Matt has always been very strong on how the nasty people are mean and horrible and unfair to the poor, downtrodden fans of jangly guitar music.

Hey, it's Madchen's 2nd hand bookstore in Devon. *I've* got the crap pub with the lending library and mouldy old indie music upstairs.

This, to me, seems a very interesting role reversal since the days of my parents' generation. Back in the Days Of Yore, it was the kiddies who would listen to new, exciting, and challenging INDEPENDANT music, while the parents complained that it sounded like a bunch of dischordant noise, and why couldn't they just listen to nice, lovely, slick, corporate stuff like Pat Boone?

Now, it's The Kids who want the lovely, slick, corporate pop like Coldplay and Britney and the Strokes, and it's the oldsters their parents age who want to listen to their weird, dischordant, INDEPENDANT music in the back of pubs.

I mean, what in the world happened to make it all so topsy turvey?

In the midst of rolling my eyes and wondering how what was lining up to be a brilliantly vipituous attack on the Strokes turned into yet ANOTHER endless criticism of the "indie" genre, a frightening thought just hit me...

This is in reference to another thread, the "death of pop" article response, and we were joking around about the idea of the genre of "post-pop" saying Post-pop would be great if it were a genre, taking the same deconstructing principles of post-rock, and applying them to Pop instead of ponderous art-rock. I mean, that would be great, wouldn't it? but then I realised, perhaps that is what the Strokes are, a bizarre inversion of my notion of "post-pop".

Intead, this is an instance where some cynical power has done exactly the reverse- applied the mass-market, assembly-line production, image and style over music, publicity-hype machine principles of pop music, and applied it to generic "indie"-sounding music.

AAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!! That wasn't what I meant by post-pop! Take it back! I don't want it!

My initial experience of indie was quite similar to Kate's. I first became aware of the existence of indie as anything other than twee tangly stuff circa 89/90 and the stuff that I heard then(MBV, Sonic Youth, Big Black, Throwing Muses, Pixies, Spacemen 3) blew my mind. It really did sound like it had been beamed in from the future/outer space. Over the next couple years hearing Moonshake, Cranes, Slint and Bark Psychosis for the first time had a similar effect. I realise now that not all of these groups were as astoundingly original as I thought at the time, and that a lot of my excitement about the music was as much to do with the act of discovery as the music itself. However, I still believe that at that point indie was still going somewhere; it still looked forward, rather than living in the past.

Then britpop happened, and suddenly indie as an innovative force was dead overnight. This is what has nearly reduced indie to a specialist dead end: an obsession with what had gone before, and a desire to merely imitate it rather than better it. When genres stop moving they almost inevitably become specialist and closed. Trad jazz is the obvious if dated example but you only have to look at what happened to techno in the early nineties and D'n'B a couple of years ago if you want evidence that it still happens now.

Matt from Sarah/Shinkansen sez: "How come if you are into only jangley guitars, then you are narrowminded, while if you are into only hip hop, then you are 'a specialist'?"

So true, Kate. And if you only pay attention to techno, then you're a visionary who sees through the nostalgic bullshit that is the entire history of music pre-techno.

The real problem with The Strokes is:
They're getting all this attention, but they're nothing special (high media profile perhaps attributable to certain parental involvement, chiz chiz), but most importantly - this nonsense has already happened before this year, to *cough* Starsailor *cough*.
As for indie in general, let's be optimistic for a change, eh? It's just in a bad phase currently, in a couple of years there'll be a massive backlash against today's trend of musical necrophilia, and everything will be brilliant. No, really.

For what it's worth - I have also caught them live a while back, and at first glance - actually thought them to be part of the same wave of style fetishists that stalk bands like the Makers and have about a shelf-life of 3 months. Few songs into the set proved otherwise - they had geniune energy and actual influences they could articulate (few of that realm really can when sober)...

Just heard the EP. Nice to know they can deliver in both attitude and execution - but it ain't the future. The "cool" factor wears a bit thin after a few songs (and drives critics buggy)...

'Buggy', as in totally ecstatic you mean? I got the NME earlier (don't worry, I don't pay for it), and noticed that they were trying to work Strokes references into practically everything, even a review of the Gene best-of, for goodness' sakes. And I found out they're apparently THE SAME AGE AS ME! I apologise on behalf of my entire generation for this sorry shower. I strongly disliked them before; I *HATE* them now. Even more than Starsailor.

Matt from Sarah/Shinkansen sez: "How come if you are into only jangley guitars, then you are narrowminded, while if you are into only hip hop, then you are 'a specialist'?"

Ooh ooh I know the answer! It's cuz fans of hip-hop (and techno) are ACTUALLY GOOD at justifying their love for the genre and proselytising about it, whereas fans of indie rest on their smug we- used-to-be-the-future laurels and restrict themselves to snarky statements like the above.

Maybe ;)

Rather than try to contribute any more to this thread (though poor DG had to listen to me RANTING the entire tube right back from Strange Fruit to the Betsey) I will simply refer everyone to the utterly witheringly brilliant and hysterically funny article in this weekend's Guardian Guide, by one "Johnny Sharp". When we get the scanner working, I will scan it and post it, because it says more than I ever could hope to.

"The Most Exciting Band Of The Past 25 Days." Sheer comic genius.

5/4 on I'll like whoever's on the cover of the NME next week. Who is it, Martian? Good to see you posting again.

I don't want the future of music. I just want good music. Who cares if Strokes sounds retro. They are good and that's all that matters.

Having heard the entire Strokes CD, the reason for the 'hype' is obvious. File them with At the Drive-In and QOTSA - journalists desperate for guitar rock WITHOUT 7-string guitars and shouty rap bits. The kids won't buy this one either.

The strokes are the future of rock and roll!!!!

Good Heavens! For once I agree with Mr Q! And if they are the future of rock'n'roll, then it is apparent that rock died a long time ago and is limping on as a rather unpleasant zombie. Ach! Zombies!

But DG: you are making — rather unexpectedly for all concerned perhaps — the same mistake as that George Monbiot on FrankenFood. Zombies are not poor they are ACE!! They eat brains and their limbs fall off with a doughy clatter hurrah!! Thus the Strokes, if not good (haf not followed this part up), are nevertheless NOT zombies.

Alright, alright, not zombies then, but certainly disgustingly rotten corpses. That keep being wheeled out, pointed at by charlatans (but not The Charlatans, obviously) who shout "LOOK! THEY LIVE!"

I thought Rocket From The Crypt were The Future Of Rock & Roll tho? Has this changed? Why did nobody let me know?

The Strokes are only "the future" in RETRO STYLEE like old episodes of Star Trek, AS IF in 1986 someone said "Imagine! In the future AMERICANS will ALSO sound like the Wedding Present! ONLY WITH SHITTER PRODUCTION! AHAHAAA!"

The Strokes are gentlemen, fine pool players and gracious winners, good sources tell me. So there.

Pretty boys, make a nice noise you can jump up and down to, it is joyful throwaway pop made with guitars. S'all. Stop overanalysing it, listen to it. It rocks. Ok?

Sure, they're overhyped ALOT... but so what? It sounds stale and rehashed to all of you, and perhaps to me too, but it's really not a big deal... Hype is what makes the world go round. Was anybody disappointed with 'Second Coming'? And yet you still found a reason to get out of bed this morning... It's only rocknroll after all...

Andy, it's only rocknroll, but I like it :))

overanalysing? on ILM? what will they think of next?

you can't crush my M.O like that

The point about the Strokes being hyped is that NME want Rock Music to be popular again for obvious reasons. They realise the Strokes have undeniably catchy pop rock type songs and have an image which they think they can sell, and thus they are being hyped into oblivion. They can't live up to the hype as far as I'm concerned because the best music and the bands I like the most tend not to be instantly catchy but slow burning classics. Having said that, they have a place and the album certainly is a breath of fresh air. At least they could be some teen idols that don't fucking suck. I mean what do you want on 10 year old girls walls, Julian Casablancas or Ronan Keating. That's the purpose of the Strokes, bland and all as they are.

But Ronan, why does JC suck less than RK, tho? I mean actually concretely, rather than knee-jerkily? Yr point abt re- establishing rock as an important music among ver kidZoR wd be better taken if the NME actually had any idea WHY rock is "better" than eg boyband chart-pop... And also why Strokes-rock is "better" than eg DJ Martian-rock... Or why -pre-fabrication in this zone of music is intrinsically superior to prefabrication in THAT zone etc etc...

Thee NME ov to-day kover laym0r-lammo rox0r bands 'cuz no pr0p3r pop group will talk to them, mark ;)

E h3ard thee strow-x0rz for thee second time thee other nite.

THEY ARE V.MEDIOCRE and I was hoping they'd be obnoxious rubbish, just 'cuz that wd be more fun, or something. V. disappointing...yadda yadda etc etc

fukc, er, something or other...what? er...fukc aol-warner, that'll do....(nodz off over monitorx0r)

x0x0

I think to the NME's audience, Julian Casablancas is clearly far more marketable than Ronan Keating. Their traditional readership base has led them to support rock or strokes rock above chart pop. While I despise, generally the constant laments for an end to "manufactured music" I feel some acts are less manufactured than others. The Strokes fall into this area.

That'll be thee same NME audience thatz declining @ a year-on-year rate ov greater than 10% (akording 2 recent circulation figs), eh?

a-har-har-har

x0x0

Well, fair enuff: but this "trad base" = totally collapsing, is this not the point? Into a mere minority music (this = not a bad thing in itself, but useless for survival of mass-market weekly)? is not this codification-into-retrofixity of a likely audience actually a move that ensures its death: cf what some jazz-mags did with Trad in the 50s... they effected survival of tiny hardcore refusenik trad-diehard readership, and opted out of effective influence over via discussion of ANY OTHER MUSIC...)

(i might add i still haf not heard a NOTE by the Strokes which is now rather laffable: i nearly bt the lp last weekend but went for Aaliyah and Cannibal Ox instead)

Absolutely agree. There is no market for a weekly music mag anymore that covers alternative as its main focus. But like I say their audience wouldnt be diminishing if they could get everyone to like the strokes and the other bands they plug, they still want to keep it real though see?

Don't pay any money for thee strokes lp, mark. Unless the 2 trax0rs I heard were utterly unrepresentative, it's (northern-ism alert) "neither nowt nor summat" - 'You heard that ANS synthesiser archive LP, BTW?

x0x0

I have a copy of the album, and I like it, against my better judgement. I'd never buy Aaliyah though

Not totally agreed that trad-geetar pop/rock has sunk back into the pack as one of hundreds of genres and sub-genres. What differentiates trad/guitar 2001 from most is the weight of history trailing behind it. This ensures the hardiness of the species by allowing old folks a familiar un-frightening entry point. Of course they don't buy the NME - but note the (I bet) increasing circulation figs of Mojo and Uncut.

In other words the trad base is only totally collapsing if your market is defined as the NME demographic. Taken overall it's holding up, but it's 30 and 40-somethings who are buying. Yer old geezer is likely to pick up The Strokes or Elbow along with his Graham Parker re-issues, but will pass on N*E*R*D or Cannibal Ox. (Except YOU, Mark!)

...and of course being an old geezer meself I picked up a copy at the weekend. It's OK too!

dr c: secret reason for stalinist unpersoning of eg the insectoid intruder 10 = i am several years younger than everyone else my age

Strokeses at #2 in the charts - a couple places higher than Five (whose album is also good): this puts paid to nobody-likes-them notion. Mark S. is entirely right though that the NME has very little idea why the music it says is good is better than the music it says isn't.

B-but! Isn't this their second week on the chart? #2 means nothing if the album is going to shoot down the chart this week.

It's not about the music solely. They think the music they say is good is good because its their opinion and they're music critics and quite arrogant like that. They also "think" its good because the mintue the modern age ep hit the NME office there was an executive decision, "ok we can plug this, this will work" and since then thats whats been done. When people write in complaining about them erratic reviews normally they say "oh we're not robots or a single minded unit", however did you see any of their writers stepping out of line to say a bad word about the Strokes, despite the fact that they were reviewed by many different people. Do you think everyone at NME believes the hype about the Strokes? Hardly.

Ned's Atomic Dustbin had a top 5 entry in the album charts with their first album.

I'm not sure Ronan... I have a feeling 95% of NME staff probably *did* really like the Strokes album... whether that's a) a sad reflection on ageing hacks or b) corporate tunnel vision or c) the fact that it's a very good album is another matter.

And of course Richard is right too... if you start to get hung up on chart positions you're on shaky ground. Let's not forget Gene playing the Albert Hall, or Northern Uproar storming the charts... Obviously the Strokes album won't be troubling the Top 5 for much longer, it's not that kind of album, but it's the fact it got there at all which is remarkable.

I'm sure 95% of them liked it. If you want to work for the NME you probably like indie music. An album like The Strokes which comes along offering familiar pleasures presented very well is hard to resist, and nor should people resist it. I'm positive a lot of those journalists won't think it's the best album of the year, or are a bit embarrassed by the really extreme rhetoric, but I think their liking is surely genuine.

I really don't know about 95%. I mean music hacks are fairly critical. They all agreed *too* uncannily if you ask me. It stinks of "official magazine line". Having said all this I agree the albums not too bad.

From what I've heard the album is the arse nugget I expected it to be.

Some of it sounds like Ash.

Much lighter touch than Ash, generally. Sounds worse the louder (i.e. more rock) you make it.

He's just "Dave" now! Will wonders never cease?

The album reminds me of a mid 80's effort at doing the late 70's NY thing. It would have come out on Homestead and been recorded on a $200 budget - The Outnumbered or Salem 66 spring to mind. You know, the sort of thing where the drums sound terrible after track 4 because the engineer got blind drunk halfway through the mixdown and left it to the band to finish it off.

In other words, I'm coming to the untrendy conclusion that it's a great album after all!

I stand by every word I've written about the Strokes coverage. I have also been playing 'Is This It' half to death. Hmm.

So Tom, what would be the problem with having your life changed by a band whose debut you find more compelling than the some of the material penned by the 'originals'?

I said "Strokes coverage" - I underrated "Last Nite" a bit though it's one of their worse tracks.

But I still think there are a lot better things to get your life changed by right now than The Strokes. Lots worse, too. I wouldnt want to be 16 and listening to this band - I don't think I'd enjoy them, even. I love moments on the Strokes album because they sound like a band who deep down think or know that the haters are right and that rock doesn't mean shit anymore, and the record is working that situation through. They sound vulnerable, in other words. If I was 16 I'd want a band who sound thrilled by possibility: good - excellent even - though the Strokes are, what they offer isn't that.

I'd also BTW be equally down on getting your life changed by Television or the Velvet Underground, at this stage in the game.

It is late and my drying contact lenses obscured the "coverage" part, oops. I find your BTW especially important, because your use of the word "hackneyed" in your NYLPM review suggested a preference for the innovators. Is that the key word here, maybe? Does the presence of 'innovation' in music suggest possibility, and 16 year olds should be listening to records full of the stuff instead of the sound of a band bouncing a ball against a concrete wall, hoping to break through, but knowing that it's ultimately futile?

I am off to bed and when I awake, I expect to find Tom's article- "The Danger of Dangerlessness"

But you only need to sell about 12 records to get a top 10 album - Do any of you journo types have sales figures? A first week #2 is nothing to get excited about (and worse for 5ive only getting #3).

I can imagine that if I were 15 right now I'd really like the Strokes, in the same way when I was 15 I loved Oasis but if they appeared as a brand new band RIGHT NOW THIS INSTANT I wouldn't give them a second thought. Except to rant about them here, of course.

Well, after digesting all the hype you Brits have been pounding down all us Yank's throats & actually LISTENING to the Strokes Lp, I'd hafta say it's probably the BEST debut LP o' the year. Mind you, I do find it kinda lackluster at points, but over here "rock" music is considered the teen-angst bullshit rap/rock crap that YOU fuckers are finally getting a heap of what w/ SHITE like Slipknot & crap getting the push over there! YES, they are derivative, but they are a breath of fresh air in today's music environ where if it isn't hip-hop or techno influenced it's relegated to the "oh, it's just rock" category. While they aren't the greatest band walking the earth (they sure as hell don't sound like Television, no matter what the music journos write!!!), they certainly are a relief for people enjoy music that isn't created in computer banks! At least you limeys have the good & proper sense to see how great Rocket From The Crypt are!!! The Bottom line: Good album, nothing ground-breaking, but what is??? (& don't say techno or rap/hip-hop... they've already buried themselves into their own respective graves/ghettoes... they are NOT the future sound of music... hell, 99.9% of that shit is just as "retro" as the Strokes music! Luckily here in the US, us yanks got the hype afterwards & not as heavily- lucky us.) Another band unfortunately hyped to death WAAAAAAAY to early!

You all seem to underestimate the strokes, I heard them a while ago and yes at first I was like "this is just one very long song", but i guess when you acctually listen to the lyrics and the melody the real feeling of the song shows through. The band themselves have admitted the hype is too much and they may not be perfect, i mean, name a band who were! But They are good in their own right, they aren't in it for the money, they already have that, so they're not shocked by it, that means they're in it for the music, which i think is a pleasant relief from bands doing it for the money, at least these guys don't have alterier motives for making their music

Katie

The Strokes? Are they anything like the Velvet Underground?

they aren't in it for the money, they already have that, so they're not shocked by it, that means they're in it for the music, which i think is a pleasant relief from bands doing it for the money

By this logic, rock and roll was invented and should only be played by New England preppies.

at least these guys don't have alterier motives for making their music

already rich = no bias

what are you people talking about you have never heard of them!! thats really kind of unbelieveable.. what you're saying is equivelent to someone in the pop scene saying they have never heard of britney spears..

You might want to review the date range.

biggest non event of 2003, NME's fav guitar planks The Strokes name new album
http://www.nme.com/news/105997.htm

The Strokes name new album: "Room on Fire"

...don't call the fire brigade

Meanwhile, The Great White who did set a room on fire, get fined 100, 000 dollars for being stoopid and killing 100.