Saint Etienne v.s. the Magnetic Fields/Stephen Merritt

they've both made records i love and records i don't rate. i'll probably go MF on the basis that i have more favourite songs of theirs than St.E

Christ, the Merritt Chronicles are longer and more rewarding, but between 1991 and 1995, and intermittently thereafter, SE recorded so many masterpieces of tone and cool that I'm tempted to give it to them just cuz I'd rather have a drink with Sarah Cracknell than Stephen Merritt.

st etienne every day of the dam week

like mf, love se

I'd rather have a drink with Sarah Cracknell than Stephen Merritt.

― Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:47 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

My first reaction to this was like, duh, but on a second thought, there's a lot of questions I would like to ask Stephin Merrit, he's definitely more enigmatic. It would also be amusing to watch him being very uncomfortable while he answers. On the other hand I would like so have *something else* with Sarah. I'm gonna go with St. Etienne but only by a narrow margin.

BTW I'm just gonna use this thread as an excuse to post this wonder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Ob9TJueBQ

surreal

For me it's a really tough one but I'm gonna go with St. Etienne, just cause i think they're most resourceful and varied. The MF sound can get a little tiring some times after repeated listenings. Also, music influenced by St. Etienne >>>>>>>>> music influenced by Magnetic Fields.

As a songwriter, Merritt, but for the whole package Saint Etienne.

Saint Etienne. Sorry, Steve :(

Also MF are much more of a love-the-band-hate-the-fans scenario.

A brilliant, restlessly diverse pop band rooted in dance music's best qualities versus an overpraised, hyper-literate indie bedroom "genius" that makes Belle and Sebastian fans wet their pants. Hmmmmmmmm.

We obviously have different ideas of what those qualities are because as a disco/circuit slut, I found Tiger Bay weak on the buttcheeks, to be charitable. And I really wanted to love that record since I adored So Tough. In fact, I never thought dance music had all that much to do with Saint Etienne until "He's On The Phone" which was more Motiv8's baby. Maybe he should've produced Tiger Bay.

So I'll take genius here.

saint etienne by some distance but MF are cool too and SM seems like a nice guy.

I don't really see the connection between the two. Am I being obtuse?

They are both ILM favorites and otherwise there is no connection.

oh, ok

You can imagine both having an ideal of "perfect pop".

merritt irritates sasha frere-jones so he's probably doing something right

They are both ILM favorites and otherwise there is no connection.

― I just wish he hadn't adopted the "ilxor" moniker (ilxor), Monday, October 19, 2009 7:00 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

iirc, Merritt has said on more than one occasion that he likes St. Etienne... and then there's Sarah doing the vocals for "The Kissing Things", which is wonderful.

...was trying to find a Youtube link but there are only covers with dudes playing the Ukulele?

I don't really see the connection between the two. Am I being obtuse?

My main reason was that they've both worked as music journalists and writers, and their encyclopedic knowledge of pop's histories and formulas inform their own aesthetic.

You can also see similar, though less poppy, aesthetics from other bands featuring former critics, record collectors, college radio DJ types e.g. Yo La Tengo, Pavement, Sonic Youth, LCD Soundsystem etc. Being a music buff to make music to please other music buffs?

I've heard way more MF than SE (I like them too), so no contest. Also I would need to have drink with Sarah for that comparison...

The other contrast between SE/MF and all those other informed bands I listed is that the latter know more about crafting the ideal rock band, while SE/MF think more about what the perfect pop song would be.

What's the difference?

sound over content possibly

(i am talking nonsense)

I don't think that describes the mf very well!

What's the difference?

I think the difference is how they use their encyclopedic knowledge of rock and pop and what they aspire to be.

The "rock" critic bands I listed are more "What would the cooler or more tasteful rock bands do here?" in their thinking, while SE/MF are more "How do we create the perfect pop song?" or "how could I perfectly emulate this perfect pop song from yesteryear?"

So I guess the difference (and I know this is a bit sweeping) is that one group of critic bands has a great idea on what the perfect rock band would be like, while Saint Etienne and Merritt are more interested in what the perfect pop song would sound like.

critics think that the music critic history of certain bands has more influence than it actually does imo

critics think that the music critic has more influence than it actually does imo

I don't see how being a music critic is any different from being a songwriter who carries around a lot of influences in his/her head which may or may not land in a song.

band where the music critic-esque knowledge undeniably affects the product: stereolab. yo la tengo...sometimes. SE, MF, pavement, sonic youth - eh.

the types of music that MF and SE make is so different that lumping them together as 'pop' is sorta absurd.

on ILM, everything that people like or don't like but think other people like is 'pop'

pop above all else amirite

Re: critic/collector bands not being different from a songwriter in terms of influences.

I think that when you're too familiar with the history of pop/rock, have heard "every album" etc. you have the anxiety of influence and a better idea of how others will receive your work before they've heard it or you've created it, and that leads to a lot of the post-modern and formalist tendencies record collecting bands develop.

The most notorious example of these tendencies being the cute game of "can you spot the homage, Mr. Critic?", romantic irony, and rock-songs-about-rock, which are great for flattering bored critics and have propelled some slightly-above average bands into critical heaven (Art Brut to thread). Though that strategy obv. relates more to those record collector rock bands than SE/MF, who are different.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Magnetic Fields. St Et are fairly one-dimensional in comparison.

Oh yeah, I still haven't voted.

True, St. Etienne are more one dimensional in comparison, but still. I find their first two albums far more of a go-to point for a certain mood with far more frequency than I ever reach for MF.

Fine, one-dimensional then, but what a dimension to be in.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

bah

surprised it was even close tbh

Saying St. Et. is one dimensional is admitting you know very little of their catalog.

otm, it's a weird insult

I mean finisterre / sound of water / good humor and foxbase alpha are all realllly different sounding albums

Meanwhile I would happily and without intending insult call Magnetic Fields pre-69LS "one-dimensional", and I listen to that far more than either St. Et or other MF.

(Had to abstain on this poll though - MF didn't feel like the right answer, but couldn't really vote for the band I dig out once in a blue moon and can barely remember any album tracks by above the band I return to often)