Article Response: How I Learned....

good stuff. makes me want to finally get round to listening to the album... so more comments when i've actually heard it.

Nice article, Tom. If there's disco to be found, trust Mr. Ewing to uncover the foot-shuffling goods.

I didn't like the first half much. I quite liked the rest though.

Interesting you add a question mark to the title of the record. Is This Wrong? Yes. ;-)

nice article, tom...as always. :)

I'm saying that The Strokes understand indie as a dance music form better than anyone else, which along with Casablancas' rock doubts makes Is This It? a terrific album.
No. No. No. I mean the conclusion. Don't really know about the assumption. To me they sound like a second rate school band who is copying VU badly (esp. in Last Nite and Modern Age). What really annoys me about their songs is that they are somehow unfinished. They do not have an end. They start and don't go anyway. There is one idea of a riff or a rhythm pattern and that's it. It is repeated up to total exhaustion. Their music is extremely bland.

This is probably one of the best articles I've ever read on The Strokes, mostly because of what it hints at: that The Strokes are a rock band that has realized the whole rock game is up. That the whole album is basically a lament to this idea, of 20th century rock 'n' roll music. Rock is dead. Long live the 21st century.

Amen to Alex.

Wouldn't say Rock is dead at all. I don't look at the Strokes for Rock. When I look at the Strokes, I only see a Face band. The perfect fashion accessory if you want to be hip, yet safe. .

That the whole album is basically a lament to this idea, of 20th century rock 'n' roll music. Rock is dead.

In that case, I'll just play "20th Century Boy" by T. Rex.

I'm not sure why but this "rock is dead" thing is as annoying to me as "pop is shit".

Actually I do know why. It's because it reminds me of those articles NME pull out of the sky every now and again about how "pop is dying". Rejoice! If we keep saying it, someday it might be true!

Rock isn't dead really is it, you just don't like it.

Rock N Roll died the day that the person first shouted "Rock N Roll will never die!"

rock and roll will never die!

wasn't that by Q-Bass?

Well I really enjoyed reading Tom's article.

It might be pointless to speculate why since I've never found it possible to really work out why I like something, and its never a good idea to say so out loud (judging by my ILM invoked hate mail - heh!) but I'm gonna have a bash.

I think Tom writes best when he tries to describe sounds, he can be compelling and immersive (good things) to the reader without being proclamative or proslytising (bad things). In the recent Dexy's piece there was a similar bit when he is describing the speeded up chorus repeat. The writing just filled your head and you knew exactly what was being said. It doesn't feel like there is an agenda, its not a stylistic exercise, just, um, the naked language.

What makes the Strokes article better that the Dexy's one is that he plays on his own weaknesses - the temptation to ponder on what other people are saying and thinking - and builds it up into an advantage too.

The Dexy's article was 80% great and 20% awful, the awful bit was Tom having a go at all them other Dexy's fans running around saying Geno is better than Eileen when they are just inverted snobs and not as cool as Tom (contracting and paraphrasing for comic effect there, sorry Tom) That just felt annoying, who cares about the people who don't like Come on Eileen? Not this reader. You dont get to come in my house if you don't like Come on Eileen.

But the Strokes article had the delicious touch of needing to address the situation regarding other peoples opinions (because of the hype) that the Dexy's article had to invent and still not let it swamp the description of the music.

Which it does. Tom really should worry much less often.

ps Tom (and his friends) if you think I'm having a go at you, you are wrong. I just like chatting about pop music.

the title of the article is off though, i didn't get the impression that he loved the strokes. i sensed tepid admiration perhaps, but certainly nowhere near love.

Well next time I'll put in more exclamation marks.

Alexander B - thanks very much, actually. Constructive criticism is exactly what I need. I don't think it's that good an article myself - it was written a month ago and it never knitted together the way I wanted it to. But I'm glad some people enjoyed it.

Ronan I'm not saying rock's dead exactly or that I don't like it. I'm saying that what The Strokes are doing - playing what seems to me self-consciously poppy, vulnerable rock while keeping some of rock's key tropes - is a more interesting and relevant thing to do with the form than just doggedly being A Rock Star. You can see some of the same thing with The Hives, who tout this idea of being a manufactured rock band around.

Do you think that's why there's a perception that they don't care and thus are cool? Er this is among alot of people I've talked to who bought the album.

On the four articles taken together (which I've just read - or rather skim-read - in one go):

my overwhelming impression is that everyone is very keen to tell me the Strokes are the epitome of something, even if no-one can agree on what that something is. So they're dance-pop, they're early 80s power-pop, they're a boy band, they're typical CBGB... Whatever, they are archetypal. And that's the key, sez FT, to forming an opinion on them. A reminder here that I haf nevah heard The Strokes - or rather I haf now heard Last Nite a couple of times ("Hard To Avoid" - ha ha). But reading these articles I feel now that I have now heard The Strokes, if you follow me. Great. Yet I was hoping for something more than that - a reason to actually go and listen to the LP, perhaps? The bottom line of the pro-Strokes pieces, the 'why the Strokes matter musically' bit, seems to be "it's been a while since you've heard pop done this way, and they're good at it too". (Tom strives for something more profound at the end of his piece, but I don't really understand what). I dunno. Doesn't seem like much of an endorsement to me.

On Tom's piece in particular:

aside from the ending which, as I say, needs clarification, I thought it was an enjoyable read. There is a lot more to be said about the sleeve and the title of the LP, tho'. For example, as Helen points out, is the title actually a question? Which word do you put the stress on? etc. You could come up with half a dozen different interpretations easily. It's these ambiguities about The Strokes (the band's name lends itself to umpteen interpretations too) that, for me, is the most interesting thing about them.

I think "They're good at what they do and here's what it is" is the best reason to listen to anything, though Jeff. You decide whether "what it is" appeals and take it from there. Nitsuh and I are saying that there hasn't been a band doing these particular "what it is"-es this well for a while.

So maybe I'm saying yes I can see exactly "what it is", and it certainly appeals, but I still don't want it. Now I need to work out why not. Hmmm...