Arctic Monkeys????

Spencer Krug (Wolf Parade/Swan Lake/Sunset Rubdown) is in his mid 20's and he seems to be s**tting out great songs on a daily basis.

On the age thing, I was talking to someone yesterday about Neon Bible vs. In Rainbows and he said that NB sounded like a band growing and stretching themselves but IR didn't. I pointed out that Arcade Fire are in their mid-late 20's and only on album 2, Radiohead are in their mid-30's and on album 7. I also said that I reckoned that the more significant figure was not the age in my opinion but rather the number of albums put out. If a band whose average age is 24 puts out their debut it stands to reason that by the time they're 30 and on album 4 then they'd begin to run out of ideas. Looking at the bands you listed above, the one I'm most familiar with is LCD Soundsystem; James Murphy is what? 37? 38? But aside from all the production he did as part of DFA I understand that he's only on his second album proper, so he probably has tons of ideas left that he wants to get out.

As for the kids, Britain seems to be a bit of a wasteland for indie music at the minute when it comes to bands wanting to do something musically ambitious, most bands just seem to want to play bad punk songs.

Trix - Arctic Monkeys do nothing for me.

Unicron - Spencer Krig is interesting alright, can't say I'm really a fan but he does have genuine musical ambition. I think you've hit on something about the amount of time bands have had to develop. A lot of the more interesting stuff to me is by people who have been doing what they do for a very long time. Ellen Allien has been involved in electronic music of some sort since around 92, James Murphy may only have two "proper" albums (a less relevant concept in dance music than it is in rock), but had been releasing singles quite some time before the debut album came out, his album was mainly delayed as he was running DFA records day to day, even before that he way DJing as Death From Above and involved in Punk/indie bands since his teens. Electrelane (Britains best indie-rock band right now?) have had about four albums.

It's like these acts have gotten past the initial rush of being a new act, yet are still developing, only in a more interesting and organic manner.

I agree about the indie wasteland thing, seems a lot of bands are ambitious, but in all the wrong ways.

i think that kids dont have to think anymore about anything or rebel against anything...90% of what they want can be reached by a double click...

the days of weekends in a garage with guitars, and noise, boredom fuelling the thirst for new ideas and sounds, rebellion, ansgt and all the hormonal and emotional drivers behind joining a band... seems to be gone...

just look at the band making the most waves on this website..Radiohead....15 years and still coming up with the "new idea" it seems...

where are the young bands biting at their arses?

Is that how he was able to get away with releasing a first album with some killer tunes and a load of dodgy stuff to pad it out? "Sound of Silver" really works for me as an album though in addition to having great individual tracks.

The first album, like many dance acts first albums was largely a bunch 12" singles and their B-Sides in one place. The first disc of the debut album is supposed to be the "proper" album, the second disc is all earlier single material. Sound of Silver is definitely structured like a classic rock album and all the better for it.

Montreal?

If Pablo Honey was released today ... How would it be received as a debut ?

Would it stand out, or be lost amoungst The View, The Enemy, The Kooks, The Pigeon Detectives etc. ?

Perhaps it wouldnt be received at all, but it was released in 1993 not 2007 hence the songs that were on it reflected their lives and environment at that time.

And if it was released today and compared to The Kooks, well i'll let you draw your own conclusions as to how it would be perceived....

Well it would sound dated obviously, but I kinda get the point you're trying to make. Radioheads first album was weak compared to later offerings.

However, that isn't really what I'm getting at and perhaps enforces the point I made in my first post? The most interesting music being made right now seems to be by people who are old hands at this game, who've been around the block a bit. Maybe when those bands you mentioned, or at least former memembers of those bands are a bit older they will be doing stuff that is just as interesting? but for now most of them seem a little mediocre.

It just seems the younger bands are not the vangaurd of music these days.

Black Kids are pretty good

I quite like Bright Eyes although his latest album isn't up to his usual standard.

Los Campesinos! are good fun.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but I don't know the ages of most of the acts I listen to.

Well, it's equally possible, Binokular, that the people who frequent cluas aren't at the vanguard of what the younger set are listening to. I know that I'm certainly not: all that talk, for example, of "dub step" and "grime" goes completely over my head. Folks around here (including me!) seem largely interested in rock music, and I'm using that term in its broadest sense.

Similarly, I'm not sure how applicable it is to suggest a band like LCD Soundsystem are at the cutting edge. I like LCD, but let's face it, it's equal parts Talking Heads, The Fall, and Lou Reed; it's hardly breaking new ground. So, it's understandable why people in their 30s would love it.

You can argue this either way.. some artists that come to mind, who've gotten better (or at least are as good as their early works) are Sonic Youth, Paul Weller, Massive Attack, Radiohead, Ian Brown, Beck, PJ Harvey, Bjork.. while others just seem to get worse with every year / album.. U2, The Cure, Rolling Stones.. so it really depends on the band.

Definitely true though, that the old rock adage that all bands produce their best work in their 20s is a load of bollox - some do, some don't.. the problem is that the industry is very much biased towards young acts, so though there's a lot of decent young bands around like Artic Monkeys, Futureheads & The View, there is also a load of cock that gets far too much attention like The Enemy, Kooks and all those other bloody awful shouty guitar bands that the likes of Steve Lamacq are obssessed with.

Maybe I'm just an old codger... the big three-o is looming large!

I'd say peaking at early to mid-20's is generally about right. Say you started making music around 13/14, you'd reach expert level and have found a songwriting voice about ten years later, around about the time you're one or two albums into a recording contract. Most people put everything into their debut album as its been fermenting [I couldn't think of a better word] for years, or if the budget doesn't allow then the second or third album. After that they're spent and their goals have been met. A good artist can re-ignite the muse (Beck) and others aren't so lucky (Noel Gallagher).

Most of the time though, its all in the 22-27 range and in those first few albums. God bless the yoof.

Sooo five years ago...

Grime - Think Early Dizzee Rascal
Dubstep - evolved out of Garage, incorporated elements of DnB






I didn't suggest LCD soundsystem were "cutting edge", at least not in the avante-garde "The Wire" magazine sense, just more relevant to me. I can't think of a more solid, brilliant from start to finish album this year. Your point would be much more valid if there wasn't a host of younger bands trying their hand at the disco punk thing too, only with less creative success, because they lack the same depth of understanding of both Rock and Dance structure.

Fuck, totally forgot. Animal Collective. Those guys seem quite young judging by their pictures.

I have to disagree with the theory that bands run out of ideas after a certain amount of albums.. they may not necessarily come up with totally new concepts, but they can certainly develop, hone & progress their sound to almost entirely new (& better) levels. Sonic Youth are a prime example - their 1st couple of albums are fairly s**te, noise fests with the occasional good idea, "Daydream Nation" was a huge improvement, "Goo" was an instant classic, but for me, their output throughout the 90s wasn't very impressive at all... then 12 years later, they came out with "Murray Street".. a brilliant, focused, mature version of their sound which blew me away.. the following 2 albums, "Sonic Nurse" & "Rather Ripped" have continued that form.

Spot the fanatic!

Sonic Youth(?) are a perfect example, they're arguably better now than even "Daydream Nation" era, the "proper" albums obviously, but their more avant garde SYR stuff and other side recordings like their "in the fishtank" session can be pretty amazing at times too.

Unicron - Animal Collective are another one of those bands I respect but can't honestly say I'm a massive fan of, keep em coming though...

Yeah, they're definitely better now than ever - I went to see them play the Paradiso in Amsterdam on their "Murray Street" tour - amazing venue (converted church) & one of the best, if not the best gigs I've ever been to... having Jim O'Rourke in the band was a great move.. the guy is a fantastic musician, and for the 1st time in all the times I'd seen them, there were no break outs into self indulgent noise fests (well, apart from the end of "Diamond Sea" which is more than forgivable!) or 20 minutes of badly played Ramones covers.