Always look on the bright side of life

I think that if you think that MSP and Radiohead "see the world as utterly hopeless", then you really haven't seen actual misery or depression, or, alternately, haven't bothered to actually listen to either artists' back-catalog before trashing them. Granted, both bands have released ALBUMS or INDIVIDUAL SONGS that are quite depressed or angry, but that's hardly the entire collection of work now is it?

I also find it a bit offensive that "being depressed is an easy option" in your world. Ya don't reckon Richey Edwards or Thom Yorke ACTUALLY FEEL what they write, do ya then? Or are you just trying to say a writer shouldn't write about how they feel but instead should just be in pursuit of happiness and joy in song format? Neither statement really sorts out for me.

And *I'm* coming with a hate-hate relationship with Radiohead (Radiohead easily being the more negative of the two bands, I feel, unfortunately) and as someone who thinks sad music is dreadful in general. Bring on the disco, etc.

With a lot of the best 'miserable' music (allowing for foolishness of ascribing emotions to music) the miserablism is combined with a) humour, b) loveliness (in melody for instance), c) instrumental energy which prevents the mood from being enervating. The best MSP stuff falls into category 'c'. Miserablilist stuff can also be comforting when you're feeling similar.

There's no excuse for these bands been seen as 'more insightful' and the suggestion that suffering produces better work is ambulance- chasing. But with Yorke I wonder who does see him as insightful. This is something I'm starting to realise reading about his band while trying to review Amnesiac in a blatant hit-grabbing exercise. Most of the reviews and comment about OKC and Kid A focus on Yorke's voice, the musical innovations and experiments, the complexity of the music, the beauty of the melodies....there's actually very little attempt to talk about what if anything the band is saying.

insightful? thom? ha. he is from the michael stipe class of lyricists, opaque sentiments shrouded in magnetic poetry. radiohead's awful music is far more expressive of any variety of emotional states than are his words.

That's because Radiohead are saying FUCK ALL BOLLOCKS lately. And I don't mean that as "Radiohead are meaningless, they say nothing worthwhile" but rather as "Radiohead's lyrics make little sense and seem to be more tonal than anything else". Perhaps the sound of the music is miserable. I know it makes me miserable *rimshot*

And yes, I can think of very few Manics' "depressing" songs that don't fall under category c). And I'm still not 100% sure whether or not a song like Faster (I'm assuming the pop metal racket that is The Holy Bible is both the miserablism that Michael is speaking of and the rockin' music that Tom is on about) is actually a depressing song. Being about a depressing feeling doesn't necessarily make the song miserable or depressing in and of itself. There are positive things to be taken from it. I doubt Richey was miserable the day he wrote Faster.

Yeah, right Michael, why don't depressed people just 'snap out of it'. For that matter why don't quadraplegics just GET UP AND WALK.

Sorry. I'm angry. Do you think anyone would CHOOSE depression? I have never suffered from it, but know people who have, and it's an ugly, ugly illness. Not a 'cop-out'

Your musical analysis here is hopelessly simplistic too. I'll get to that later.

But has Yorke been diagnosed with depression? Far be it from me to be callous but his miserabilist schtick appears to me to be just that. Apologies, if someone proves otherwise.

Besides, Kristin Hersh is one musician whose mental health problems were well documented in the music press around the time of 'The Real Ramona', a record which I find unrelentingly joyous and life- affirming.

why is everybody being so bad tempered?

I suppose clinical depression doesn't even make it into the recording studio too often. "Like Flies on Sherbet" by Alex Chilton sounds clinically depressed. Radiohead sound like moaning little whippersnappers, miserable in an adolescent, turgidly self-indulgent kind of way. ... hey, but maybe that's cos it's monday and it's raining..

remember kids, there's always beer!

It's a shame the word 'angst' has fallen into disrepute a bit. It would save arguments like the above - by using the word 'depression' Michael risks comparisons to clinical depression, which I think wasn't intended. Even leaving mental illness aside though a bit of misery and self-contemplation is probably good for the soul.

Mild clinical depression (which is all I know much about) could certainly make it into the studio - a likely scenario though would be that the characteristic inability of the depressive to take pleasure in what they do would mean that the results might be listless or that a kind of neurotic procrastination of production might take place - something which might easily be mistaken for perfectionism.

The point isn't whether or not Thom Yorke has been diagnosed with depression, really - personally, I think he's full of crap and IS using the "pity me" schtick as a way to get attention, but that's just not really relevant I feel to the general question, which is that singing about depression, anxiety, or "bad emotions" makes someone a "lesser artist".

The problem everyone is having is that somehow, being depressed is "an easy option" and "a cop-out", when at least one band had a member who killed himself (standard disclaimer about MSP here) and the other has someone who you can at least see where he'd be someone with low self-worth and a lot of anger. Which doesn't in ANY WAY make them more credible artists (again, I must point out that I despise Radiohead), but it sure builds a case for the idea that they write what they know, if you feel they are depressing artists. I have a hard time reconciling the belief that these artists should not write what they feel and instead write happy little Madchester choons.

And I feel the need to reiterate that I still don't see what is so dark and depressed about a good portion of MSP's work.

I find most of Britney Spears's songs more depressing than anything Radiohead ever did anyhow.

these artists should not write what they feel and instead write happy little Madchester choons.

would be funnier, though, wouldn't it? Actually the Manics could do with a healthy dose of the Monkees.

My gripe with either artist is not that they should be happier, but that they should handle the negative side of life with some eloquence or interest. I think Michael's earlier contention that "there should always be an awareness of a better world" is quite interesting. To me the spiritual, redemptive element in gospel and some soul (and of course, some of every other genre) is evidence of this credo.

As a footnote, and to cheer everyone up a little, I notice that the Manic Street Preachers got called a "Brian Adams tribute band" in this weeks Time Out. Well, I thought it was richly deserved, anyway.

I do think the obliqueness and nonsensical aura which typifys much of Thom yorke's more recent lyrics are probably a reaction to the time when his lyrics were - to be kind - a little bit simpler. Anyone having difficulty fathoming the meaning of Creep is probably unable to speak basic English. And look what happened with that.

I agree with Tom that Angst is wholly different to depression, and really rather a useful process. To bundle up all our feelings of inadequacy, despair and unhappyness in one big bundle and bellow them out to Motorcycle Emptiness - its not pretty but it works.

Why should there always be "awareness of a better world"?

Yes, I think Michael raised an interesting issue, and I think people have missed the point a little; maybe pop groups aren't the best example of cosmic nihilism, however :) Personally, I always get this feeling, an impatience if you like, reading Beckett or Cioran, that kind of "we are born astride the grave" attitude... Sometimes it can seem like, erm, unearned cynicism, and you want to say "but that's not the whole story!" I guess a lot of it depends on the mood you bring to the work - sometimes Beckett seems like exuberant black comedy to me, an "embarrassment to the void" (the phrase is Donald Barthelme's), other times just impossibly bleak. Hmm, I dunno....I'm rambling : )

But I don't find Motorcycle Emptiness to be a particularly angsty or depressing song. Sure, there's angst involved but the overall sound is quite positive, and the lyrics never go much beyond general resignment to the life the protagonist has been given and the provincial life.

I want the record to show I've tried twice now to turn this into a general musical thread and not a Manics thread and it seems that Manics haters are really one-minded on this one. Just for the record, see.

Yeah, I'm with Josh's comments on this one: who the hell says you should be aware of a better world? I'm sorry to make that sound blunt, but it's true. Why is it necessary to believe that there is a "better world", and for that matter, what makes you believe that there IS a better world for the protagonist of any song?

I'm all for it if it fits, but I don't see how it's necessary either - a lot of the absolute worst songs of all time were written from the standpoint of angst-with-awareness, you know (see: Bon Jovi).

And I STILL don't see how the two artists named are prime examples of soulless depression with no awareness of betterment or happiness. I've gotten loads of cracks at their expense (Bryan Adams WISHES), but no one has really explained it at all. WHAT makes MSP or Radiohead depressing for you lot?

I don't find Radiohead depressing at all, but I never paid a lick of attention to the words. You could say that even complaining about this world shows an awareness of a better one, if only because this one seems to come up short. In any case, I definitely don't think artists have any kind of obligation to show anybody anything. When I think of music that's relentlessly bleak or depressing, I think it serves to cheer someone up somewhere who feels exactly the same way. The relief in this kind of scenario comes from the recognition that someone else feels as you do. That's a comforting feeling, even if all that's being exchanged is thoughts on misery. It still does some good, even if it doesn't point the way.

Misery loves company, and one could argue that Radiohead have started a company that makes misery. Man, that should go in a song somewhere.

I would never call either depressing per se. They can be beautifully melancholic and often make music that sounds just like that -- whether or not one wants to say that that dramatizes/polishes up depression and is therefore a bad thing is another matter entirely. But a band like the Swans (or the Angels of Light, if you will) can also do that and they're not filling arenas, so I wonder whether it's a matter of choosing a favored whipping boy that actually ended up with hits.

Damn tough question -- what should musicians do? Well, there's the problem right there, I mean, if you start explaining that, then the obvious answer is that you're listening to the wrong musicians. I mean, here we are in the golden age of pop and you're banging on about one of the few voices of angst left. Britney's catalog is indeed sad, in the unrequited love sort of way, although even if she was "born to make you happy" she got over that and is now "stronger" one still can't forget that though she's lucky to be a star she is still apt to "cry cry cry at the lonely part" and etc. I mean, f'r chrissakes, what about pop isn't a cop out? We're talking the central facet of escapism (if we take pop to encompass all pop culture) in all of the modern industrial world. I suppose my problem with angsty bands is, at times, they don't help you to escape at all but just dig you in deeper. But then, sometimes that's just what I need. I lead a designer lifestyle, with a music for every mood and occasion. Which is, I think, a large part of the point. We might make some sense of the whole thing by turning to Hegel and his understanding of learning and development, that once something has been a guiding factor in your development and you master it, you need to move away for sometime, and return only later when you can approach it again with new eyes. Thus the problem isn't listenig to sad bands, so much as listening to the same bands. Eh?

Michael, if you don't like MSP and Radiohead..don't listen to them...

Trust in your own opinion - who is deeming them insightful - critic,music-lovers - sod 'em

The main inspiration behind this was that I've just finished reading Michel Hollenbecq's @Atomised@. Basically he just felt the world was shite and men are incapable of love. I think he is putting his own fault as an artist and his incapablity to interact with human beings as humanitys fault.I was redminded of an MSP lyric -*I'm happy being sad@. I'm just tired of self-pity for self-pity's sake. I realise deprssion is a disease and meant no disrespect. I just thjink greater art could be delivered if we eased off the angst business.

I find being optimistic and hopeful often leads to disappointment and unhappiness. So, maybe the most depressing songs are written by the 'happiest' people? Could a song like "Let Down" by Radiohead only have been composed by an optimist?

But I STILL don't see how MSP or Radiohead - to use the very examples cited - are "self-pity for self-pity's sake". Why is all "angst" (to use that word instead of depression) "self-pity"?

I think the original question was ill-phrased, but I see the point, to an extent...seeing around that corner to the potential happiness adds a bit of hope that we've been conditioned to expect. I mean, it's what drives all of Hollywood--even if the movie is somewhat depressing in tone, we're always looking for the happy ending somehow (Terry Gilliam's fight with the studio over the ending of Brazil is a perfect illustration of this).

I don't agree that there has to be a happy ending implied in a piece of artwork in order for it to be valid...some of my favourite work is mind-numbingly depressive, bleak and without hope (The Cure's Pornography springs to mind, but you could easily choose any of their earlier albums). I think if it's a put-on you'll immediately see through it...I feel that way about Nine Inch Nails. For stuff that's truly informed by depression, you just have to avoid the expectation of the big Hollywood finale.

Stevie t raised a good point that pop music isnt the best example of what I'm treying to get at. The works of Beckett are a good example of this relentless nihilism. And Dr C, I do have a good idea about manic depression. I have an uncle who is just managing to get his life into some semblance of order after a 10 year battle with manic depression. I think its one thing being a depressed rock star touring the planet and another thing if u are depressed and trying to hold on to your family and your job.

Why are those different things?, she asks, knowing full well she's getting fuck all reply to her questions. Ally Kearney - the girl who doesn't exist. Maybe I should just stick to talking about Damon Albarn all the time.

Ally, calm down!...I'm not ignoring you. Why are Radiohead and MSP self pity for self pity's sake? It feels to me that they see angst and their constant cynicism as the centre of true art. They cant and wont look beyond it, it's an adolescent state of mind.

i just saw Life Of Brian..

Looking through their catalog, Radiohead's saddest songs are about things like plastic surgery, Romeo & Juliet, stunt cyclists, etc.

Not being a funny-looking, misunderstood pop star.

Also, maybe the artist just love sad music because of the music. They enjoy genuinely dark, brooding tunes, and that's the kind of music they want to play. How many really, really dark, really really sad songs can you think of that aren't about dark, sad subjects? ("This Is Hardcore" comes to mind.)

Sorry Ally, I berate myself for using Motorcycle Emptiness as my example of an angst song previously. You are right, it is not particularly angsty, but I always found the music combined with merely the title filling the need that I had for such a song way back when.

This could well be a cyclical argument in places. After all The Smiths were often cited as being depressing, when quite a lot of their music is joyous and celebratory. This could equally be said of New Order. Maybe it is merely that some people have depressing singing voices - it doesn't matter what they sing. Leonard Cohen's Zipahdedoodah anyone?

Any genuine lyrical attempt to get at the heart of teenage angst (which should definately be seperated from depression in this argument) will eventually display what a fundamentally selfish and ridiculous thing it is. This is why a song like Creep does cut to the bone - yes you can heartily sing along about your own alienation, but at the same time slowly become aware that the song itself is whiney and rather pathetic. Its a good way of getting out of the rut.

Finally, since the Manics seem to be bundled up in this argument, perhaps it would be best to say that they have not written an extensive amount of depressing songs, but a lot of their subjects are depressing (and indeed depression itself). And you might argue what they are now as compared to what they were ten years ago is a depressing transformation (Cheers).

> How many really, really dark, really really sad songs can you think of that > aren't about dark, sad subjects? ("This Is Hardcore" comes to mind.)

"This Is Hardcore" not about a dark, sad subject? What do you mean?

Surely the point of Houellebecq is that love redeems the world but in a desexualised form, which has more to do with, say, the Wedding Present than the Manics or Radiohead. So he is envisioning a better world in which humans are asexual.

'Atomised' is (like Geri Halliwell) a bit of a cheat though because he gets his two protagonists into happy relationships and then both women die horribly and entirely through bad luck which seems to defy the point a bit. The more I think about that book the less impressive it seems - stylistically great though.

See also the other Houellebecquian thread.

I was thinking the same thing - This Is Hardcore IS about a depressing subject, mainly disillusionment. I've never heard an interpretation of the song that was about anything that could be construed in any way as a non-negative event or emotion.

That being said, while This is Hardcore is not a good example of this because it IS a depressing song, but writing about a negative event or emotion doesn't necessarily make a song depressing in my mind, and I don't see why it should in anyone's eyes. For example, I'm convinced the song Ray of Light is about death, but it's in no way a sad song. The song Faster is rather obviously (to me) about cutting and alienation, but it is not a depressing song - A Design For Life is a far more depressing song, but no one ever mentions EMG as sad because it "sounds pop". Radiohead's Fake Plastic Trees IS depressing, but Creep OTOH is rather clearly tongue-in-cheek and actually sort of funny, not sad. A subject can be depressing without being sad, and a subject can be non-depressing yet somehow still be sad.

It just strikes me as a shallow reading of any song by saying "song about negative emotion = depressing, song about happy emotion = happy". It doesn't work like that because human emotion doesn't work like that. I'd go so far as to say 4st 7lb is NOT a necessarily depressing song, and quite frankly it's the most disturbing thing on THB. It's true it all depends on your perception, but I honestly have a hard time respecting the perception that if a band writes about unhappy emotions, they are wallowing in their misery.

You can describe depression without wallowing in it or even sounding depressing. And for the record, happiness and joy are not difficult to capture at all. At least by my definition - and I believe mine is vastly different and less tied to obviously happy sentiments than others. Perhaps this says something bad about me, but I don't really care. It means I can listen to more stuff without getting depressed ;)

This revisionist notion that "Creep" is tongue-in-cheek is beginning to irk me, not least because it might lead to the revisionist notion that "Creep" is good.

I've always seen 'Creep' as an extremely cynical bid to corner the (real or pseudo) saddo market. It's just so damn obvious!

i) at the most, radiohead's 'darkest' material is, in sound anyway, bittersweet and sappy, not at all bleak. (compare "let down" to, say, "the eternal.") not far at all from a basic pop tearjerker dressed up in complicated arrangements and high-tech production. there is an off-putting generalized misanthropic bile to a lot of the lyrics (see tom's _kid a_ review), which i *do* have a problem with. but that's not because it's unhappy or angst-ridden.

ii) does anyone genuinely care whether ty actually suffers from depression or "feels what he's writing?" i mean, would you like his songs more if he did?

iii) it's been said (can't remember by whom now) that no work of art is entirely hopeless since the fact that it even exists suggests some sort of hope and effort. what mark said, too.

iv) being depressed is *not* easy.

v) why should someone who is famous and wealthy not be depressed? are most depressed people depressed because they're not rich and famous?

In an interview on MuchMusic (Canadian music channel), Sook Yin Lee asked Thom the old 'is the glass half empty or half full' question and he instantly said 'full'. She then asked him outright if he would call himself a true optimist and he was all 'unequivocably' and stuff. So yeah.

I think I know what you mean, Stevie, but by the end of The Unnamable I don't think I could call whatever emotion (if any) is present 'unearned'. I mean, *that*'s what I call earning.