Sponsored by Paper Thin Walls.

NYLPM response: The Strokes Coverage

(register)(forgotten login)
ilXor.com > ILE | ILM
I Love Music | New Answers | Unanswered Questions | Ask A Question

I'm asking this because the Neumu coverage actually made me quite sympathetic to The Strokes. One of the things I loved about Addicted To Noise was precisely how insanely excited Goldberg would get about things he loved. And his sound was always fairly specific -- I remember in particular, Sonic Youth, Cat Power, and Sleater-Kinney getting the five star treatment -- his old news section tended to run articles following *every stop* of their tours, and not much else on some days. & while Goldberg has a defined sound, he has good taste in it, and I always loved being part of that fan massive when a band that he liked and I liked was hitting and he was reporting exhuberantly on it and it felt like we were conquering the world. So, uh, he likes the strokes and I may have to give them a further listen.

Further, I realized that Strokes backlash has been of two types. A) Dislike for rehashing of history. B) Over-reverence for the bands which influenced The Strokes. Which is to say, dismissing The Strokes as a pale imitation of prior bands. The first type of crit. might have some validity, but the second type of crit. bothers me greatly, as it seems to further validate the whole reification of history.

So, a few questions: first, is the whole neumu/Goldberg approach a good one? Second, are the strokes rilly a step backwards [i.e. britrock pt. II], or are they the bubblegumization of proto-punk, a mainstream break for something which never hit the mainstream quite on the nose the first time round? I mean -- cool as teenagers screaming for Britney are, how cool are teenagers screaming for a Television/VU knockoff? The tragedy, I think, would be if The Strokes were hailed as the great rockist hope and failed.

-- Sterling Clover (sterling_clove...), August 16th, 2001. (2 trackbacks)


All I know is that I've got both the singles and the LP too, and I really like them.

Sure, there's a bit of Television, some VU, some Stooges, and doubtlessly countless other bands and artists that I know fuck all about in there, but the simple fact is that The Strokes have got some ace tunes and some top pop hooks. Dead-metronome drums and circular chug guitars will always be cool because they sound as if the band in question are too fucking insouciant to even fucking play properly.

The bassline on the opening track is worth £10 of anyone's money in my book.

-- Nick Southall (nic...), August 16th, 2001.

Second, are the strokes rilly a step backwards [i.e. britrock pt. II], or are they the bubblegumization of proto-punk, a mainstream break for something which never hit the mainstream quite on the nose the first time round?

Strokesband are fine, as I keep saying - OK pop group. Strokespress is more interesting than the band.

But in answer to your question - both. The point - part of the point - about canonisation is that it brings things into the mainstream that may not have been in the mainstream "at the time". It renders "at the time" irrelevant. The VU are a mainstream band now, utterly.

I mean -- cool as teenagers screaming for Britney are, how cool areteenagers screaming for a Television/VU knockoff?

Why would that be cooler? And I've not seen much evidence - over here at least - of teenagers screaming for The Strokes.

A name that hasn't yet come up in Strokestalk which I think might be relevant - Elastica.

Had they called themselves The Grokes I'd be right behind them.

-- Tom (ebro...), August 16th, 2001.

to answer one of the q's in Tom's original piece: people did say Television were important in 1975. They said that Verlaine was like a futurist Charlie Parker, whose onstage improvs were going to catapult jazz soloing into the modern age and the forefront of pop cultural relevance. This idea was later skewered by an indignant Lester Bangs and seems to me as clearly dumb as anything anyone has said about the Strokes.

-- Alasdair (alasdair_maclea...), August 16th, 2001.

they go mad for the strokes in "londons trendy camden town". really seen as saviours and heroes by the swedish girls and the italian boys. for all the NYC-ness, this makes them seem curiously english, as they seem to have become an icon for 'camden'

me? i like the strokes, i think they're ok. i don't know anything about this Television thing. i don't like Television anyway, so to me they're better than Television.

-- gareth (garet...), August 16th, 2001.

Sterling wrote: "The tragedy, I think, would be if The Strokes were hailed as the great rockist hope and failed." Think calling it a tragedy is a bit melodramatic - am pretty certain my musical world would not be affected one way or another if tomorrow The Strokes were crushed to death by a giant statue of Johnny Thunders. And what exactly is 'failure' (or 'success') in this context, and why does rock in particular always seem to need saving/reviving? Who put it on its death-bed in the first place, and isn't it sometimes better for all concerned to pull the plug? Dunno if I believe this or not, but maybe the sooner that rock becomes a 'dead' form - a bit like jazz or blues - the better. We'll stop taking an interest in third-rate revivalists and 'trad' dads, and simply wallow in the thirty odd years of good stuff that still exists prior to the end of the 'tradition'.

-- Andrew L (andre...), August 16th, 2001.

strokes are no 2 in oz this wk- rather that anyday than britney.

-- Geoff (pissingintherive...), August 16th, 2001.

Original piece: here.

Difference in tone between Strokesband criticism and other bands which get praised and it is assumed have 'retro' influences (eg Oasis when they were starting out): early coverage of Wasis was at pains to point out the ways in which the band modernised and brought up to date its retro template. Strokespraise - what I've seen anyway - makes no attempt to do this. (Maybe it's not the extent of the praise I'm objecting to but its shitty, imagination-free quality - at least with most hypes you find yourself thrilled even if repulsed.)

Again, an OK band from what I've heard. Better them, even, than the things I've heard proposed as more worthy - White Stripes, French Kicks - coz Strokespop is more pop.

-- Tom (ebro...), August 16th, 2001.

Good looking, skinny Noo Yawk boys reviving a music from 25 yrs previous, therefore Strokes=the 2001 Stray Cats.

Catchy songs, *cool* style, entertaining, fun, but not life changing. Though I would hope to be proved wrong.

-- Billy Dods (butterbubble...), August 16th, 2001.

Strokespress is more interesting than the band.

In Badger's Making the Pie Higher daily blog (ah, daily updates...), he links to the AMG's BIOGRAPHY for the Strokes. Yes, a BIOGRAPHY borne purely out of the momumental hype these folks have garnered in the past 3-6 months. (Has it only been three months?) I'm sorry, but three to five songs on various singles do not a career make (unless you're Jordy).

It's hard to say who (in the music writing community) is truly inspired by the music and who's just inspired by the hype. Since most of the press that I've heard about (2nd & 3rd hand) has come from usually suspect British sources (present company excluded, of course), my overwhelming curiosity for the Strokes is offset by wariness. I mean, how am I supposed to take this stuff seriously when AMG ends their "bio" thusly:

"In support of its debut CD, Is This It?, the Strokes toured America and Europe in 2001."

Hi, I'm your fact-checking cuz. Newsflash - THE TOUR HASN'T HAPPENED YET! It's hard to come off as prescient without seeming presumptuous. And I think the name of the band is And the Trail of Our Dead..., NOT Traildead.

But that's a reference to another funny little article tic. (Like the mention of all those rock-n-roll icons - Orbison, Lennon, Buddy Holly. Pardon me while I clear my throat.) The article in question, by the way, is here. If that doesn't work, just scoot over to allmusic.com and do some typing.

-- David Raposa (dave...), August 16th, 2001.

I still havent forgiven them for their campaign. Their label 'street (re: viral) marketing' minions spammed almost every list I was on and hijacked one so that we couldnt stop talking about them. As such Im not going to listen to them.

I dont have MM, I live on the edges of commercial radio land and even Brand New Waves & Radiosonic come in faintly so rather then searching them out I will let them pass. Its one of the few parts about living deep in the hinterland for 8 monthes of the year that I really enjoy. Hype is easy to ignore.

-- zacko (zltyl...), August 16th, 2001.

I recently read an interview with the strokes in a magazine called Shout NY. After reading it, I'm almost positive that they haven't heard of half the bands they're being compared to (or said to be ripping off). The singer specifically mentions having never heard of the Fall or Nation of Ulysses. I'm not sure what this says about them, but my personal sentiment (having come across them on a couple of occasions and seen a show) is that they are all jackasses.

Having said that, however, I think there are several reasons why they're doing so well. First off, one has to realize that NY rock music has consisted of dozens of poor garage rock/ MC5-VU-Television knock offs for several years (example- Mooney Suzuki). These groups are in a sense less influenced by the original groups (iggy, MC5 etc) and more so by bands such Jon Spencer, Jonathan FireEater and the Make Up who, no matter what one thinks of them now, seemed quite exciting around 96-98. I personally think that all three of these groups were highly innovative and important when they came out. It seems as if what followed them, such as Mooney Suzuki, sort of turned the whole garage rock thing into a very tired campy bore. Consequently, it is hard to even listen to someone like the Make Up now, because you can't help remembering what they've spawned.

The Strokes are just another manifestation of this present day NY garage rock, though my guess is that they know little more than the names of the preceding groups above. I really think they are genuinely slow people. Still, the big difference between them and some other derivative bands is that the strokes sound more professional. Other groups tend to copy the amateurishness of Make UP/Jon Spencer recordings and come off sounding like total trash (far worse than the Strokes). Next to much of NYC music (and Detroit, Chicago, etc..) the Strokes sound positively modern.

If all goes well, perhaps the strokes could have a big hit and then fall apart, bringing attention to other NY bands who are already pushing and shoving to get away from the whole garage vibe such as Interpol, The Walkmen, or Navy.

-- hans (hansgree...), August 16th, 2001.

Instead of talking up the STROKES (a band that, frankly, doesn't need any more hype, unless they're going to attempt an attack on Mount TRL), let's chat up the bands that aren't getting the hype (NYC-based or otherwise).

Interpol is some fine New Order / Joy Division-influenced stuff. Who is this Navy? And what's with badmouthing the Mooney Suzuki? Good ol' fashioned rock-n-roll has its place in the grand scheme of things, too.

-- David Raposa (dave...), August 16th, 2001.

maybe I've led a hopelessly retro existence, but they don't really sound all that much MORE like the velvets, television, or (especially) the stooges than hundreds of tiny little indie bands I've heard over the years. Tons of bands have been mining that vein of ny rock for years - albeit most of them more ramones/dolls influenced than television-influenced.

What sets The Strokes apart from the generic-nyc-'76 bands is how BRITISH they sound. I hear Morrissey and Ian Curtis and even Jarvis Cocker & Damon Albarn in the vocals as much as Lou or Verlaine. And their "posh" background - that's so ENGLISH! I'm sure they were all huge Brit Pop fans. They dress EXACTLY like Menswear in Converse all- stars - another NME "saviour of rock" - or any number of those "new wave of new wave" bands of a few years ago. The fact that they embody, to NME et al, some sort of mythic ideal of what a New York band should be is mystifying.

I really like them, by the way. It's so nice to have a rock n roll band to argue about again.

-- fritz (fritzwollner5...), August 16th, 2001.

I think it's important to separate the "Strokes as Band" phenomenon from the "What it Means that People Like Them" phenomenon. As I've said before, I don't think the band will wind up much of anywhere, and my guess is that "The Modern Age" will wind up much like "(I'm) Stranded" or "Where's Captain Kirk" -- an old single to be pulled out and loved (or anthologized 20 years from now along with 20 soundalike tracks by bands called the Rubs and the Caresses or the Aneurysms and the Cardiac Arrests).

But -- and I suppose you've heard me say this before -- I really think people's excitement over them (even if it is still limited mainly to a set of tastemakers and critics) represents a reaction to the prevailing tone of music over the past 5-7 years: we've been soaked in futurism, an unprecedented emphasis on arrangement and "sound," a pull toward sparkly studio amazements that are meant to feel like something much more than just people playing music. All of that's been great, in my opinion, but I think it's essentially led people to forget what the old mode of playing was like, so much so that the slightest reminder (the Strokes) suddenly seems like a revelation -- and for those young enough not to have much memory of that mode, even more so.

None of which is to say that the Strokes are particularly good at this. But I bought that single and spent the rest of the day listening to it over and over, and I had to stop to ask myself why -- and the answer was that I was in the mood to hear something come from that particular place. Not the Strokes, not something so devoid of its own innovation -- but I do want to hear some really fresh brilliant bands come out of the "faithful recording of people playing specific instruments" vein, and I think it's going to happen soon.

Sorry to restate My Overarching Theory of What Will Happen, but it's my honest answer to the question.

-- Nitsuh (nt...), August 16th, 2001.

I hadn't even heard of The Strokes until I started lurking about ILM, so their media blitz can't be reaching all quarters (then again, I am pretty much a hermit these days.) So, out of curiosity, I read Tom's piece on NYLPM and downloaded "The Modern Age" through less than legal means. (I think they're probably doing okay, so I don't feel too guilty.) The one thing I *was* struck by was just how much this guys voice does sound like Lou Reeds; I didn't mind it, but it was kind of disarming. But I agree with Tom that there's nothing "important" about them (and important is a pissant word anyway as he mentions), any more than there was about the Blues Explosion. (I'd hesitate to say it, but I think Pussy Galore *may be* "important". But they also wouldn't rate an NME cover today.) It's safe, and by that I mean comforting in the way that reading a book you loved in HS five or ten years later is comforting on some level. If it leads a teenage kid to appreciate the VU or Television or even the NY Dolls, then I'm all for it. But I think growed ups might be a little embarassed gushing about something so retro.

-- Jess (dubplatestyl...), August 16th, 2001.

Dave: the AMG routinely writes in past tense like that, even when they're writing about a release or whatever that hasn't occurred yet (but which they expect to).

-- Josh (kortbei...), August 16th, 2001.

if you're going to correct someone , at least do it properly..........

their name is: And you will know us by the trail of dead

-- scott (findsco...), August 16th, 2001.

Thank you, Scott. Those long band names always tangle my fingers. Though I don't have a problem with The I Live the Life of a Movie Star Secret Hideout. Hmm.

Does anybody know specifically where all this Strokes hype originated from? Is there a Ground Zero? (Is there ever a Ground Zero?)

-- David Raposa (dave...), August 16th, 2001.

I think Ground Zero for the Strokes hype probably physically resides at the Mercury Lounge, as the fellow who booked them there and the Bowery Ballroom (thus allowing people to see them) is now their manager. Also, they have, and have had, several lawyers, publicists, etc... since right after they started. Also I apologize for using the word "important" in my last entry on this thread to describe a band. I agree it is a poor word to use in such a context. It implies alot more than what I wanted to mean, which is simply that said "important" bands were often the basis of what dozens of other "unimportant" bands put out in the years following. Basically, that means while the strokes are unimportant now (cause they're entirely derivative), when a million kids in Ohio start copying them (and not consciously copying the older stuff), then the strokes will suddenly become important.

-- hans (hansgree...), August 16th, 2001.

"Basically, that means while the strokes are unimportant now (cause they're entirely derivative), when a million kids in Ohio start copying them (and not consciously copying the older stuff), then the strokes will suddenly become important."

I had to reread this a few times before I realized I basically agree with it (cuz I'm friggin tired today, sheesh.) It's probably the best use to the word important, since "importance" is only ever bestowed in retrospect and seems to follow Eno's Velvets dictum of "sold no copies, but everyone who heard them formed a band." People have been covering this axis (Velvets/Stooges/Dolls/Television/Ramones) for decades. There are whole labels devoted to it (Sympathy For The Record Industry, Estrus, anyone?); I guarantee you drive to any major American city and you'll find at least one, if not a handful, of bands "exploring" this retro/trash/garage sound. It's never going away, and I suppose it's popularity will wax and wane based on the popularity of bands like The Strokes. It can be a lot of fun, but nothing to assume is going to spearhead any sort of rock revival. (Wasn't their a similar what's the hub bub, bub? a few years ago about Jonathan Fire Eater?, and then boom boom shake the room, where are they now?) My question is why do the Japanese do this sound so much better than most Americans? Guitar Wolf is about the only band I've enjoyed in this idiom in the last five or six years..."Jet Generation" gives me an ice cream headache everytime I listen to it. (Which is a plus.)

-- Jess (dubplatestyl...), August 16th, 2001.

I don't see how the Strokes are remotely like "garage rock" as I understand it, other than the fact that they are pleasingly inept on their instruments.

Garage rock is originally by 60's american bands who were inspired by british invasion bands who were inspired by american blues and r&b, it is not '01 american bands who were inspired by american bands of the mid-70's who inspire british rock writers to cream their jeans.

-- fritz (fritzwollner5...), August 16th, 2001.

I'm slightly with Fritz on this one, in the following sense: I don't think people who are actually into the Strokes are into them in the garage sense. I get the feeling that they're liked as a pop band, basically, albeit one with a bit more swagger than's been the norm in recent years.

I mean, these are songs -- structurally and melodically -- that one could essentially imagine a more rudimentary version of Belle and Sebastian playing.

-- Nitsuh (nt...), August 16th, 2001.

I think Ground Zero for the Strokes hype probably physically resides at the Mercury Lounge, as the fellow who booked them there and the Bowery Ballroom (thus allowing people to see them) is now their manager. Also, they have, and have had, several lawyers, publicists, etc... since right after they started.

This is pretty well correct, although they were together as a band -- with, for a time, a different manager who they left despite being under contract with her and who actually booked the band's first Mercury Lounge appearance -- for a couple of years before anyone paid notice. And those lawyers, publicists were hired right after that new manager, Ryan Gentles, came on board. His contacts got them to Geoff Travis at Rough Trade and the (near?) unanimous hype started from there.

Key to their appeal, as well, I think is that like Oasis they not only return a guitar-bass-drums setup with familiar consensus-building roots to rock but they act and, arguably first and foremost desire to, be rock stars in all of the elegantly wasted, groupie-shagging conotations. Reading the press from their first UK tour one learns that not only do they rock, but they get drunk, start fights, make boasts -- like Oasis did, like Proper Rock Stars should. They photograph pretty well, too. It makes the press' job pretty easy. Outside of that much maligned nü-metal or hip-hop we have to go "Behind the Scenes" for this type of personality and decadence these days -- Travis and Coldplay are hardly cutting it in these departments, are they?

This is also one of the characteristics that they share with the Dandy Warhols and the neo-garage bands: fetishizing the attitudes as well as the sounds of the past. VH1 is reportedly negotiating a second season of "Bands on the Run," to feature more established bands and -- surprise, surprise -- in a brilliant stroke (heh) on the station's part, they are, acc. to Buddyhead and others, rumored to be considering the Strokes, Dandys, BRMC, the Warlocks, and Brian Jonestown Massacre.

And, as always, Nitsuh seems to speak a lot of truth. His career trajectory, in the U.S. at least, seems as if it will be the band's fate.

As for the music, we're looking -- more specifically on the Post-Punk Canon thread -- at the trees, but I think most veteran critics may be pleased as punch with the forest: Pop music being inspired by Lou Reed and Television! Finally! Some of these writers, whether they've known it or not, have probably waited a long time to be able to back a band such as the Strokes.

-- scott p. (scot...), August 16th, 2001.

Wait: before I catch shit for that statement, let me clarify. I'm not actually trying to draw that comparison, which would be a tad ridiculous. I just mean that underneath the stylistic references, they're a pop band playing pop songs, and I think the people who are enjoying them are enjoying that more so than they're enjoying the very muted touch of swaggering New York late-70s attitude. I'd even guess that there's a bit of perceived irony going on, a sort of "Well, why not?"

-- Nitsuh (nt...), August 16th, 2001.

I think the people who are enjoying them are enjoying that more so than they're enjoying the very muted touch of swaggering New York late-70s attitude

Nitsuh, I agree, but I'd say many of the people into the Strokes enjoy the attitude w/o knowing or, if told by the press or whomever, caring if that attitude is "swaggering New York late-70s" or not.

-- scott p. (scot...), August 16th, 2001.

"I get the feeling that they're liked as a pop band, basically, albeit one with a bit more swagger than's been the norm in recent years."

I don't doubt this at all, since they're probably already far too pop for the hardcore garage/retro cogniscenti. (Not that I would know, but all hardcores are reactionary cliques anyway, right? ;]) Buttttttttt..*who* is enjoying them? Where are "we" reading all this hype? (And yes, these are legit questions, because like I said, I hadn't even heard of 'em pre ILM. For the record, I likes em.)

-- Jess (dubplatestyl...), August 16th, 2001.

is the italics fixed now?

-- Tim (tfinne...), August 16th, 2001.

or now?

-- Tim (tfinne...), August 16th, 2001.

Okay. Yeah I'd echo Jess's questions. While I accept that The Strokes' initial success is something of a fait accompli by now - one proven by Australia's sales of the album - I think the fact that their popularity is still predominantly press-driven has to be foregrounded for at least the next few months. It's far too early, IMHO, to be trying to infer from the hype some sort of broad musical seachange (a seachange I think I questioned on a different thread, Nitsuh, but I can't quite remember now...) from their hype. The hype is - for the moment - press-manufactured, and the press would have loved The Strokes at any point in the last ten years. Their hype, whether good or bad, is nothing if not consistent.

-- Tim (tfinne...), August 16th, 2001.

My other question really is literally *where* are we reading this...is the NY Times and Spin and the Stone or is this lesser well known magazines and web stuff?

-- Jess (dubplatestyl...), August 16th, 2001.

Well, as I'm sure most of you know by now, I am not a fan of the Strokes. But I think my opinion deserves a bit of explaining. What I hate is not so much the band themselves, the music is a bit too bland to get excited about either way - I wouldn't throw my radio out of the window if they were played but I certainly won't buy anything of theirs either. Condemning a band for being retro per se would be a silly thing for me to do, owning two Oasis albums. What I really hate is the press they are getting. I find it immensely frustrating that a band who are so ORDINARY are so lauded. In that respect I do resent their existence. I don't actually see too much evidence of them being a success, at least in this country, where the EP only got to #15, did it not? That's quite possibly relatively good for a band's first release, but not the chart monster it was hyped to be. The other factor in my Strokes-hate is that they are the same age as I am. Not because they're famous and I'm not, but that it worries me that my generation, having devoured derivative 90s rock in our teens, are only going to produce even more cliched old rubbish. Only time will tell, but I hope the Strokes are not a harbinger for horrors yet to come.

-- DG (rgreenfiel...), August 16th, 2001.

I have no idea where all the hype is coming from either; the only place I hear about the Strokes is around here. I d/led a song "Barely Legal" to see what it was all about and it sounds EXACTLY like the Wipers ca. Over the Edge (the voice is a little different, but the rhythm is the absolute standard Wipers rhythm, the guitars are Greg Sage minus a couple hundred octane (but the tone is exactly the same), the bass is the same...it's uncanny). In fact this song is basically "No Generation Gap" by the Wipers. I don't hear any Television, hardly any VU at all. I'm not sure whether I like it or not, but I can't imagine anyone going crazy over something like this in 2001. What else should I be listening to?

-- Kris (branch_ricke...), August 16th, 2001.

Actually I don't like it at all; the Wipers' similarities are really annoying me. Ripping off the Wipers isn't the same as ripping off VU. If they make any money off of this they should send it all to Greg Sage.

-- Kris (branch_ricke...), August 16th, 2001.

I have to say, I like yer comparison, Kris. And yeah, sending Sage money is a good idea. I might have to break out Is This Real as soon as I'm done listening to Hot Shots II here...

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), August 16th, 2001.

The band's first-ever press was in a fasion mag (heh) and I can't recall the title. It's a single letter, but it's not W (and not Q). This was before Gentles became the band's manager. (As an aside: Has anyone noticed that he is listed w/the band, producer, and engineer on both of the band's singles?) The Strokes appeared in both Christgau's Village Voice column and Rolling Stone after the release of a three-song import independent single, which -- and this purely a guess -- in each case, may be a first.

The NME is marking their every little step, in great detail, having them on the cover once and the lead of the I Love New York issue. This is where most of the band's ubiquity lies.

Q covered their first-ever London show as a FOB; THE FACE ran a lengthy feature on them, ditto with (I think) Dazed and Confused some months back.

Kris, Jess, I don't where you two live, but they are certainly more of a UK phenomenon at the moment. I assume there is some level of radio/newspaper coverage there as well.

-- scott p. (scot...), August 17th, 2001.

You will all be famous. Apparently this thread has been covered in Da Capo's Best Music Writing 2002. According to Tim Thompson at least.

As I didn't contribute here yet. I still don't like The Strokes but I don't find them as annoying as back in 2001. They are better than Oasis but that doesn't mean much.

-- alex in mainhattan (alex6...), January 24th, 2003.

Alex there has been quite a lot of debate about that on ILX - mostly centering around shall-we-say-unresolved issues of permission and payment.

-- Tom (ebro...), January 24th, 2003.

Sorry, Tom. I wasn't aware of that. Where is the thread? Hold on. I found it. Dating from October last year. I must have been sleeping at the time.

-- alex in mainhattan (alex6...), January 24th, 2003.

If it leads a teenage kid to appreciate the VU or Television or even the NY Dolls, then I'm all for it.

I'm a "teenage kid", and I would class the Velvet Underground and Television as two of my favourite bands. I haven't heard much NY Dolls, but what I have listened to I like. I hear the "leading the kids to appreciate good music" thing a lot, and I guess there would be a lot of merit in it, if it worked that way. I know a fair few other teenagers, though, a reasonable amount of which are Strokes fans, and I wouldn't credit any of them with caring enough about the band to go and search out their influences independantly. It seems to me that now that the Strokes are a 'mainstream' band, the kind of people that this gives them appeal to are not the kind of people that care enough about music to want to find out about it on their own. Pretty much every teenage girl I know finds out about their favourite bands off the radio, and wouldn't waste their time searching for music outside this. For example, lots of the same girls like that like the Strokes say they are Nirvana fans, but they've definately never head of Sonic youth or the Pixies. Most of them seem to think Nevermind is the only album Nirvana ever made. This may just be specific to the place where I live (Christchurch, New Zealand), but if you ask me your average Strokes fan isn't going to care about the Strokes influences, when they can just listen to the Strokes. I've never heard Television on the radio, and very much doubt I will, therefore Television aren't gaining any fans, however good (if slightly belated) that would be.

-- Livvie (livvietappe...), January 25th, 2003.

haha tom, delete me plz

-- jess (dubplatestyl...), January 25th, 2003.

Welcome to ILM Livvie please stick around!

-- J0hn Darn1elle (edito...), January 25th, 2003.

reading this thread now is like reading one of those issues where you see magneto and professor x working together in the past and everything SEEMS hunky dory but you're cursed with the knowledge of what comes after.

(also, how many of you have your stupidities captured in a BOOK? that you DIDN'T GET PAID FOR.)

-- jess (dubplatestyl...), January 25th, 2003.

Having stupidities captured in a book is surely everyones dream, though stupidities more in the sense of banging my toe off a radiator or that time I sat into the passenger seat and fumbled around with the key near the glovebox while doing up my coat.

-- Ronan (ronan.fitzgerald...), January 25th, 2003.

I know Jess - it's hard to think of a thread where I've been wronger, tho they didn't quote me.

-- Tom (ebro...), January 26th, 2003.

Am I still the only guy that's gotten $$$ for this nonsense?

-- David R. (ilxo...), January 27th, 2003.

I could win some bar bets with the words here and make some money too. But what would the bets be?

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), January 27th, 2003.

"The tragedy, I think, would be if The Strokes were hailed as the great rockist hope and failed." - cue violins

-- miloauckerman (suspectdevic...), July 28th, 2004.

I've never heard Television on the radio

This phrase amuses me greatly now.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), July 28th, 2004.

You mean like TV on the Radio?

-- jaymc (jmcunnin...), July 28th, 2004.


-- Ned Raggett (ne...), July 28th, 2004.

jess should write about magneto more

-- kephm (keph...), July 28th, 2004.

I've played Television on the radio many a time. TV on the Radio on the radio, even.

-- artdamages (chris.tha()mri...), July 28th, 2004.


-- Julio Desouza (juli...), July 28th, 2004.


What was so good about this thread?

-- Mr. Snrub (mistersnru...), October 31st, 2004.

i'm trying to figure that out

-- gear (speed.to.roa...), June 28th, 2006.

the internet was new or something.

-- Bea Arthur - Lost COmic GEnius ? (wt...), June 29th, 2006.

and those cocksuckers at da capo still owe me $50.

-- Bea Arthur - Lost COmic GEnius ? (wt...), June 29th, 2006.

I've turned my $50 into $1 million by placing hundreds of tiny want ads in hundreds of newspapers across North America. And you can, too!

-- David R. (quoteidio...), June 29th, 2006.

Unregistered users cannot post on this board

Show All Details | Subscribe | Moderation Request | New Answers

Login | Register | Problem? || Search | Random | Users | FAQ | Log | Admin Log