Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
Just as NPR charted the rise of Clap Your Hands Say Yeah through blogs, Rolling Stone has now done the same with them and other bands. Stereogum posted their chart (above) which not so accurately depicts how blogs destroy bands that they love. Apparently on June 15th, 2005 we said something nice about CYHSY - and in this chart that is (one of) their high points?! Not to metion Pitchfork is charted as their low point. We're guessing some Rolling Stone intern didn't do their research.
Moving on, there are four bands used in this "scientific study": Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Tapes n' Tapes, Arctic Monkeys and Cold War Kids.
Our two cents: CYHSY are the only ones with any staying power, and they haven't received that much backlash. They're a talented band that will transcend this blog buzz thing. The rest of them have fallen victim to bloggers trying really hard to find "the next big thing" and over hyping something that probably sounded alright on the first listen. Tapes n' Tapes are not very good, we can't see them being around for more than a couple of years (if that), and aside from that dancefloor song we still haven't really listened to Arctic Monkeys or Cold War Kids (but according to this chart they are so over anyway).
Also, they forgot to mention Clell Tickle.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If these bands were that hot/talented in the first place, we'd be hearing more of them. Blog backlash be damned. But they're not. These bands are not enduring unless you're a music enthusiast/geek/nerd who likes this type of music. (Nothing wrong with that) Plus, it's well known that the blogging crowd is very homogenous (if not incestuous), and it seems that the shared tastes of the dominant music bloggers are very niche at this point - critical music blog hype will not necessarily translate into widespread commercial success.
I see music blogs playing a strong role in the future for promotion of up-and-coming bands, but no blog has put any bands on the radio yet (not to stay, anyway), and the music blogs are hardly a divining rod for fresh commercial talent. It's just a matter of time before it happens, but we're not there yet.
The most important change has happened already; online publishing tools have allowed ordinary fans to become citizen journalists, adding to the available voices in the mainstream music press. That's revolutionary, and definitely changes the scope of "word of mouth".
How can you say that "the rest of them" "sounded alright on the first listen" when you haven't even heard of two of them? And why should we believe you aren't guilty of what you accuse other bloggers? You brush off other bloggers quite quickly there. Especially since CYHSY are awful.
Um, who exactly from Pitchfork said that CYHSY's debut sucked? As far as I know, PF basically created the hype around CYHSY by giving them a 9.0 rating. I think their 2005 list ragged on the first track on their album, but that's about as bad as it got.
I'm not really a fan, just a stickler for accuracy.
How can blogs create an "artificial fan following"? I don't quite get that.
"no blog has put any bands on the radio yet (not to stay, anyway), and the music blogs are hardly a divining rod for fresh commercial talent."
Of course you can't discount the fact that blogs generally buzz about bands on independent labels that don't have the "promotional budgets" (read: payola funds) that the majors do, and the fact that radio sucks in general. (How many new bands get on the radio "to stay"? Hardly any.) Blogs and independent radio (like KEXP) have a more symbiotic relationship.
Personally, I first heard about Arcade Fire from P-fork, and I'll always be grateful for that. Lots of hype for bands I don't care for doesn't diminish it. Read the review, download the free mp3, decide for yourself, and move on.
meredith.. its quite simple. just think of snakes on a plane. the marketing team must have seen the internet buzz and thought they had a hit on their hands. so they spent a shit ton of money on non-internet marketing. and then when the movie finally came out, it bombed.
but jen: look at the chart, "Apparently on June 15th, 2005 we said something nice about CYHSY - and in this chart that is their high point?!"
no, its not the high point on the chart. the high point is from some unknown blog called "are you familiar?"
but dont bother listening to cold war kids. i saw them at accidentally sxsw before any of the blog hype started and seriously thought they were some local shabby opener tacked on as a favor. easily the worst band i saw during the entire festival. the fact that they're picking up speed now is mindblowing.
Picking apart BrianVan's take is a bit too easy, actually:
"online publishing tools have allowed ordinary fans to become citizen journalists"
I thought that's what a blog is.
Nick, I see what you mean. I guess it just comes down to semantics -- the fan following might still be there, it's just on a much smaller scale.
I remember the first time I listened to Arctic monkeys amidst the hype and I was like "what the fuck is this crap????" I remember the Killers were good though even though they were hyped too but then I saw them Live and it was a letdown. The killers suck live!
Why does stereogum.com get a watermarked credit for a scanned image of a chart not originally published by stereogum.com?
-1 to brianvan for stating the obvious.
-1 to blkynd for discrediting my post without actually disagreeing with it. Yes, I was referring to blogs and other CMS software... "blog" is such a widely abused word-of-the-moment that I try to use more appropriate terms when possible. Blog software is for online publishing.
Also, the fate of overhyped bands may have something to do with the economics of the business and the promo budgets of small labels, but it remains that blog hype is an unreliable indicator of lasting success or enduring talent. Right now, anyway.
What a strange last couple of sentences. How exactly have Clap got more staying power than Arctic Monkeys considering the latter are nearing a year since their first number 1 and won the most prestigious award the UK music industry has to offer last month? I dipped my toe into this article but I'm still not sure how sardonic it is meant to be; Clap have such limited appeal it's not even funny.
"CYHSY are the only ones with any staying power"
exactly why the music section on gothamist sucks.
"and we still haven't listened to Arctic Monkeys or Cold War Kids"
So you're sounding off on something you know nothing about. Just post a link and leave the half baked cultural criticism to yourself.
well. jen is really banking on clap your hands remaining big, because it gives the horrible CYHSY rip-off band she manages, takka takka, a better chance of getting big.
http://takkatakkamusic.com/music/Safer.mp3
seriously.. i think the tambourine on this song is a CYHSY sample.
i know for a fact the very person who wrote this article has asked tapes 'n tapes to play more than one of their movable hype shows, a sxsw show and most recently a CMJ party to take place at the end of this month. i don't know how much more hypocritical one can get here. and think what you'd like of the band, but they are hard-working dudes who just want to do what they love and have a good time. i think the clell tickle video making fun of themselves and their blog buzz is proof enough. and all that aside, you're missing the whole point of the chart. it's to point how fickle bloggers are. i take the fact that gothamist wants a piece of them , but then disses them as proof positive.
that takka takka song sucks. i'm sorry. can bloggers PLEASE start repping bands who sound like they give a shit?
BC, I asked them to play the CMJ thingy and pushed to get them for the previous shows. I also wrote a generally positive review on this site when they came to NYC back in January. I like the band. The "Very Person" surely gets blurred with the first person plural, but it's not to be confused with the consensus of everyone affiliated with the site.