"Confident enough to play without noise or volume"

its a question of aesthetics, not confidence

I think that phrase can make sense in a certain context, but I think that bands can hide behind the quiet/soft approach or use it as a crutch just as much as the loud/noisy approach.

Is he talking about in a live context? Because the amplification in many clubs disallows some bands to play at their most natural sound levels and it would take a certain amount of confidence perhaps to expect to be able to get away with coaxing people in, getting them to pay attention to you rather than talking at the bar, without projecting your music at a potentially inappropriate volume.

Is he talking about in a live context?

I don't think so, given that the statement comes right after a general description of the band's music. But I could be wrong, as the article is in the "upcoming events" section of the magazine.

Here's a link to the article for the context.

He's talking about a live context: the "Critic's Notebook" appears in the front listings of the NYer, and the notice ends with the date of their show!

It's also an obvious tie to the opening, only a sentence or two back: ... but twenty-somethings must be making rougher and stranger music, right?

Err guess you're right. Didn't read it close enough, though I don't think it was too off to think it was referencing the band's music and not their live show (as the "Critic's Notebook" articles usually begin with a general description of the artists' music/recent recorded output).

I guess I was more interested in the general premise behind that statement, not its use in this particular context. But yea I guess I misread it and the premise I was looking to discuss isn't there.

Well, I'd say that same sense on record, which these guys do have -- staying spare and relaxed, never ramming any energy in there, never trying to scare up rough edges* -- could similarly be interpreted as conveying a certain confidence. I don't think that's a particularly objectionable idea.

(* One of the interesting things about them, actually, is that their recordings so far sound like demos, but not in the raw / rangy / poor sound quality way we might historically associate with demos -- they sound like demos because they're clean, simple, natural recordings of a small number of parts. If they'd been stuck somewhere to play this stuff with a name producer, I really would expect that it'd get a lot more volume and noise shoved in -- more density, more abstract parts going on in the background, more noises, etc.)

Like I mentioned, I'm totally unfamiliar with this band and wasn't making any statement about them, but I definitely agree that staying spare and relaxed, never ramming any energy in there can be interpreted as a confident approach. There are many artists that come to mind for whom a spare, more spacious or relaxed sound works incredibly well and does seem to show confidence, by a kind of restraint from indulging noise, distortion, etc. I guess I was objecting to the notion that using noise, distortion, or volume somehow indicates a lack of confidence, and the bands that come to mind that use these elements to such great effect don't necessarily strike me as insecure in their approach. But this might not always be the case (I imagine there is some fantastic noisy, fuzzy stuff that has been made by bands who are really using these elements due to a lack of confidence in their songwriting) which is why I was interested in discussing it.

Playing loud and getting people amped can be cool. Playing something quiet and intense that makes people pay attention can be cool too.

yea sometimes I think there's an issue to be discussed in stuff that can actually be pretty simple

I was objecting to the notion that using noise, distortion, or volume somehow indicates a lack of confidence

Yeah, except of course it doesn't say that -- only that this band suggests some confidence by staying quiet.

(It might help to hear the band in question -- I'm guessing "Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa" is around the net somewhere. This really shouldn't be "surprising," but they're the kind of act who could easily be yelping and clanging themselves into a Clap-Your-Hands kind of space, and I appreciate the way they try to stick to airy space and simple arrangements.)

I don't know who originally said it, but there is the art-related saying "If you can't make it good, make it big; if you can't make it big, make it red." And I think to some extent you could apply it to music: if you can't make it good, make it loud. And in response to that notion, SFJ's notion makes sense. Whether or not that's the context he's coming from, who knows.

Sticking to the very abstract level this thread seems to have been conceived on, loud communication often does seems to indicate a lack of confidence. It's a truism that those who really have something tend to underplay the hand. Similarly, loud boasting more often suggests a Napoleon complex than it does any real power.

New money = flashy & self-aggrandizing; old money = invisible. We expect literary/cinematic heroes to be soft-spoken, courteous, unassuming -- until "pushed too far". We expect villians to be loud, belligerent & threatening right off the bat.

Maybe some of the same can be said for art? The early works of important artists are often full of sound and fury, while the works of "mature" artists tend to be relatively sedate. Maybe due to the fact that youth is inherently unsure of its place in the world, so feels the need to make a giant mess simply to assert selfhood? If we buy this, we might argue that older artists who lean on BIG NOISE are trapped in a juvenile/insecure relationship with the rest of the world.

Then again, maybe it's all just aesthetics -- a hall of mirrors.

villians -- make that boors, jerks and second-rate thugs. Cuz yr master criminal / supervillian types are all about the quiet cool.

I think this makes sense. Being loud/distorted doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of confidence, but it can. I think the pressure to turn up and "rock out" at a concert in order to win people over is real, and can sometimes lead to unfortunate results.

I just take it to mean: Guitar-wise, the more distortion and volume and effects you use, the easier it is to hide any mistakes you may make. (Assuming that's an important priority to yourself.)

For me personally, if I didn't have my trusty Cry-Baby wah-wah, it'd be somewhat tougher to conceal just how truly shitty a player I am.

I just take it to mean: Guitar-wise, the more distortion and volume and effects you use, the easier it is to hide any mistakes you may make.

I think loud distorted guitars also help conceal vocal mistakes. And audiences are often willing to overlook a lot of badness if you've got loud, steady rock drums they can dance to, so some will rely on that factor as well.

mark I don't think the dichotomy you're trying to create(/concerned about SFJ creating?) really exists; I interpreted his statement more along the lines of "this band's songs are best served by a more quiet, restrained approach, and it's good that they resist the temptation to undermine them with unnecessary noise". one could say the same thing about (random example) Mirah having the confidence to load up "Cold Cold Water" with wall-of-sound bombast rather than just falling into well-worn acoustic singer-songwriter schtick. basically, he's just complimenting them for avoiding the obvious approach and doing something that works better with their material.

got it -- I think I just read into some kind of provocation from him that wasn't really to be found.

wot it's like

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8763291645248939947

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx29QQ4ofGc

???

Is it one of those euphemisms?

"playing smaller clubs because we want to get closer to the fans" = tickets aren't selling

"confident enough to play without noise or volume" = can't afford amplified instruments

?

Ha, neither of those clips are at all accurate, obviously! They sound like a really light and breezy indiepop group with a vague African influence. This clip is fairly representative:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SQYN9bbjtZs

P.S. I feel safe predicting that in the upcoming press for these guys, the words "can't afford" will never ever be used in a monetary sense.

"Confident enough to play without noise or volume" is a little too close for comfort to the general New Yorker aesthetic of "let's pay $300 for a beige fishing hat." Without mind-reading, I have no idea what SFJ was aiming for, but it comes across as the usual generalized disdain for anything flashy, loud, etc. that wouldn't fit nicely into a Connecticut suburb.

Nabisco I finally got around to hearing a track from these guys (I think it was the one you mentioned upthread, "Cape Cod Kwassa Kwassa") and I think I get the picture of SFJ's comment (and your earlier points too). I probably would have been better off thinking about the comment if I hadn't divorced it from the band he was talking about.

sounds like a brian setzer project