Fireworks! Band careers over and out.

On the other hand it's a bit early to be saying this - hardly any of the bands mentioned have even got to second albums, they could be around for ages.

Nice line about being gassed. How charming. Serves me right for reading a thread on my own article I suppose.

I never read threads about my own articles. They would depress me overly. The trouble with publishing your exam papers in public is that they get marked by strangers.

anyway, out of this current crop i wonder who will escape when this subgenre becomes seen as old hat? there is something 'firework' about almost all of these bands?

That they are being mentioned in similar contexts speaks more of the smug indolence of mainstream music writing, in perpetual debt to vested interests who just want people to top up their poignancy ratio with Coldplay.

And Marcello, I don't object to having my exam papers marked by strangers with intelligent points to make - it's just the extremity of the bile and strange assumptions that surprise me. I didn't even mention the Arcade Fire - they're just one of several bands on the cover, some of whom will last, some of whom won't. And what "vested interests" are you blithering on about?

Truly stunned to learn that the Magic Numbers have sold out two nights at the Astoria on the strength of two 7-inch singles (NOT one, as the article states) and an XFM-ish "buzz". Talk about accelerating the process. (Read from bottom to top, the news page on this fan site reads somewhat like the earlier stages of the career trajectory graph in the article.)

There's a step missing in the Hollywood joke, which actually goes: Who's Joe Blow; get me Joe Blow; get me a Joe Blow type; the new Joe Blow; who's Joe Blow.

one of them was not available outside of gigs and is therefore hardly a proper release (some don't even consider their other single a proper release, either)

All of which led me to conclude that maybe the chief difference between pop kids and quote-unquote-indie kids was that at least the pop kids KNOW they're being manipulated... whereas successful guitar-band marketing depends on creating the illusion of a "natural", "organic" process based solely on merit.

But yes, there was a lot of hype about them first. Most people outside of London heard the hype before they saw them. But they are very good.

Franz Ferdinand appeared without referencing their past, and it's only because of the internet, and people who know the band, that all the other bands that they were part of were listed.

Why exactly were the Arcade Fire on the cover or mentioned in the article, then, if not as exemplars of the malaise which you invented? Or was it simply a case of, here are some indie-ish bands, let's lump them all together without due consideration that some of them might not fit into the tidy pattern of broadsheet comfort food for solvent retards who want to be continually told that new music is plastic, disposable shit so they can breathe a sigh of relief and spend their money at B&Q?

Sure you do! And Discount

The same thing happened with the Scissor Sisters in late 03/early 04 - loads of demos and leaks and odd tracks here and there, which were fun to track down and collect, giving that same sense of early-adopter ownership.

If it isn't a clever marketing tactic, then maybe it's only a matter of time before it becomes one. Sorry, thinking aloud, maybe this is all bollocks.

apart from the rapture the other thing all these bands have in common is that they're shit.

But maybe the only person suggesting that they're a transient flash-in-the-pan is a hapless picture editor working for G2, casting around for a few photos.

Basically, young A&R man joins, signs band, band works, success. Either A&R get bored and/or leave company, band left with A&R that don't know band and get no 'jollies' working a band that their boss has 'given' them.

Stop me if this is all too obvious..

fwiw I interviewed them a couple of weeks ago and asked them about exactly that, and Romeo (the singer) said that at first he was worried as to which demos had leaked, but when he found out they were ones the band were (quite rightly) proud of, they all stopped worrying and got on with being just fairly chuffed that the demand was there at such an early stage.

incidentally, a la the arcade fire, if the magic numbers are a firework band, i'll eat my face. they'll still be bringing joy to your soul in many many years, as absolutely anybody who's seen them effortlessly charm every audience they've ever had (apart from the Tears support crowd - miserable bastards) will testify.

ps. Marcello, you're howling at the moon and nobody can work out why. It's getting a bit annoying. Were you once in a band called The Fireworks or something?

but, presumably this is the case with the other bands mentioned too?

or, in fact, all bands?

I'm intrigued by the Magic Numbers, as an acquaintance of mine who sets up small-ish gigs all over the country (and who LOVES his music) came bounding over to me a couple of months ago, from the other side of a crowded pub, specifically to rave about them. I don't even know him that well! (He doesn't know my blog, so I can rule out Stealth Marketing. But semper vigilans and all that.)

And also - Annie, MIA and Vitalic are not mainstream despite the space they get on this board.

well obviously Marcello, none of those are indie/"indie" bands but it's the same thing. (huge crossover in the people who'd listen though, I'd imagine.)

compare it to Wilco, say, who had Yankee Hotel Foxtrot downloadable on their website (or streaming?) while they were shopping for a new deal and yet still sold a healthy amount once it actually came out, probably because they had a fanbase built up already over a few albums. whereas if that's happening with your first record, well, you won't build up enough sales to push on and get bigger, and yer probably fucked I s'pose.

"Modern Life Is Rubbish" may have been a commercial failure compared to "Leisure", but it helped improve their critical rep. Which may have been a key element in making their next couple of albums so huge.

Once people have listened to that first album they realise the band isn't that great, so the 2nd album fails.

Anna and I were talking about this at rehearsal last night. I find it fascinating that indie bands are manufactured and churned out by PR's and record companies the same way that bubblegum bands used to be in the 60s and early 70s. (Except the music isn't necessarily as good because it's not written and performed by The Wrecking Crew or Jeff Barry.)

I myself finding it harder to tell the difference between the Thrillers and the Killers than to tell the difference between Busted and McFly.

It isn't anything new - if anything, the bands that turn out to have longetivity are the aberrations. And usually because they've got some kind of patronage rather than because they achieve any kind of commercial success immediately. I've always said that the best career path (wince) to have as an indie band is to release a debut album which is a little bit rubbish, so you don't have to survive trial by hype.

Anyway, wow, I feel a bit weird about setting foot back on ILM but Anna told me this was an interesting thread.

If the second album can be seen as a better album than the first, and is "better than you would expect it to be" then you will succeed.

If each album can be "better than expected" each time, you will live long and prosper.

Unless you're Oasis, in case you will, anyway.

That was very funny.