No, they were a counterpoint to my argument that all things popular are formulaic. For instance, “Dashboard”, what all the hipster-blogsters have been calling for months their most radio-friendly single to date would be like biting into a peppercorn while munching through the frozen sausage pizza that is the radio.
I think there’s a cylical thing going on. In the 1990’s, rock audiences were very accepting of rock music that didn’t rely on safe commerical parameters (Nirvana, Beck, Nine Inch Nails, etc.). It was edgy, artistic music that still sold plenty of albums. In 1998, rap-metal broke wide open. Record companies and radio stations latched on to it and produced hordes of sound-alike acts. The strategy worked for a while. People have finally wised up to “why should I buy the same album twenty times”, and that’s why I think CD sales have tanked. The same things happened in rap and top 40–the record industry killed their golden goose by giving the public too much of what they wanted. The acts you’ve mentioned are good signs of hope, but much still need to be done. Plus:
–I much prefer Lily Allen to Amy Winehouse. Lily is doing to ska and dance music what the early Beastie Boys did to rap; change it to fit what their backround is. Amy is so busy copying 60’s soul it sounds like a tribute album.
–Who are we kidding? Regina Spektor’s way cuter than Shakira 
This would basically sum up my attitude towards music. Once you have heard music that’s truly unique, there’s no turning back - you’re ruined forever for corporate radio. When I first heard Steely Dan, and then later, Built to Spill, Beck, Pavement, or The Decemberists, the quirkiness and depth of the lyrics made it impossible for me to enjoy the lyrics of the average radio pop. When I first heard Neko Case and Kings of Leon, I needed to hear unique voices after that. After first heard Todd Rundgren and Frank Zappa and Yes, I needed to have music that was experimental and not afraid to push the melodic envelope. Once you’ve heard music that has touched you on a deep level, there really is no turning back.
I think sold out concerts would tend to disagree with you.
You think? 
Most of the music that people in this thread are saying is so awesome is so non-mainstream it’s silly. It’s also silly to assert that it’s somehow new, or fresh; it’s almost all totally derivative of stuff from the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s. Nothing truly new under the sun since rap, and the less said about THAT, the better.
However, one of the things Ludovic is saying points to one aspect of radio music today that is vastly different from the 60’s and early 70’s, which was the last time true variety on the radio was heard. Almost all radio stations you listen to these days are owned by one of a limited number of mega-media corporations (Clear Channel alone owns 1200 stations). These corporations have in large measure moved toward centralized decisions about what gets played on their stations. Thus, the old concept of the local DJ choosing what to spin for his/her community has almost totally vanished. Indeed, in some cases, stations don’t even HAVE local DJs at all; the whole of what is broadcast comes from a remote location, and the only thing the locals do is keep the equipment running.
The effect of this has been to stultify the whole popular radio music business. As someone already pointed out, what gets played is Budweiser and Bud Light, because it’s what gathers the most listeners consistently. And I’ll simply point out that, if the type of music that you like isn’t getting substantial airplay on some station, it’s because the demographics show that, either it isn’t really all that popular (sold out shows are meaningless; in a nation of 300 million people a few thousand fans at a concert is a drop in the bucket), or it’s popular, but with people who aren’t viewed as being purchasers of products (that old commercial thing, which pays for what you listen to).
The good news is that the internet and the mp3 player are busting up this unholy situation. Distribution of non-mainstream music is much easier now over the net, and people have the ability to listen to what they want without having to pay for it by listening to commercials. This changes the whole dynamic, allowing those who are interested in a band, or a genre, to demonstrate their demand in the most important way: obtaining and listening to the product. Now, if they would just be willing to pay for what they listen to… :eek:
We have a station playing at the office all day that mixes top-40 with older jazz, rap and rock, and as much as we like to razz new pop performers, there are some that I have to admit I like.
Mika: “Billy Brown” and “Grace Kelly” are both good. I don’t know if I’d buy his albums, but I look forward to hearing him on the radio.
Atlas and Amy Winehouse also both make the day more enjoyable.
Just one question about Panic at the Disco: it’s parody, right? Somebody said, “hey, what if Fergie were an angsty college freshman with a thesaurus, what kind of crap would she write?” It’s meant to be a joke, isn’t it?
Because if it’s not, “Chopping Broccoli” is better songwriting than “I Write Sins not Tragedies”.
Well, that’s one of the weaker offering on the album, but I don’t think overall it’s all that terribly written. Their lyrics aren’t all that great, though.
While I don’t think they take themselves 100% seriously, I don’t really think it’s a case of being a parody as much as a case of not really caring how good their lyrics are. So while all the grammar and logic seems to be in place, unlike sloppily-written pop and/or rap, it doesn’t seem to be written with much feeling.
That said, the singing and music is good enough that I like P!atD despite marginal lyrics.
ETA: if you want parody, check out “Say Anything”. More of an indie parody than an emo parody, but they certainly fulfill the bill of a band that ostensibly just has bad writing but upon inspection is taking the piss out of overly serious bands.
A similar thing happened to me with Anberlin: I heard it on an indie college station and while it was so good that it needed immediate further investigation, it didn’t stick out more than the rest of the stuff on that station.
But the allmusic.com review basically said that it was formulaic-yet-decent pop punk. This just made me want to get it more to see if they were right or not, without even waiting to listen to a used CD as per my normal habit with bands I don’t have albums from. Cities by Anberlin is now my currently most-played CD.
Not any longer.
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/TOP%20STORY/535001/
Clear Channel was a useful scapegoat, but it was never the real problem and it’s losing ground even as a scapegoat.
They DO pay for it. Supporting underground and local music financially by buying their CDs and attending their shows is a cornerstone of the scene. People who are part of the non-mainstream music scene know way more about what it’s actually like to be a gigging musician and have to go out there and bust your ass and hustle.
And it’s really silly to make huge generalizations about a huge variety of new music (that I’m quite certain you have not immersed yourself in and have only a superficial listening experience with) as not being “new or fresh” enough. And by the way, what music are you referring to that people are saying is so awesome, anyway? And why exactly is it “silly” for not being mainstream?
What’s your point? Music that’s non-mainstream can’t be awesome? The OP listed a few songs heard on a mainstream countdown that didn’t suck. I listed a few bands that were so ludicrously outside the mainstream that they got major airplay on Clear Channel and corporate radio in the time period 1999-2005. Like it or not, people turned on the radio in 2002 and heard the Strokes. The White Stripes played on MTV. They may be cult favorites today, but it wasn’t only hipster snobs listening back then.
As for fresh and new, I don’t think anyone is claiming that, either. Especially not your criterion for newness of creating an entire new genre of music. People like rock and roll. The Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Pixies, Beck, and the White Stripes all play it. None of them invented it. Most of the “stale” and “derivative” bands of today acknowledge their debt to past musicians from 20 to 70 years ago.
And why avoid talking about the only truly new and fresh genre of music? It’s uniformly crap from top to bottom? It’s just as ignorant to dismiss music for being new as for being old, yet kids who ignore Rush and Jethro Tull are imbeciles; people who think music died in 1977 are cultured. I understand losing interest in seeking out new music, but saying all new music sucks just because one is too lazy to search is the same narrow-minded attitude that adults have been trying to push on teenagers since the beginning of time. It was dumb in the 60s and it’s dumb today.