"It's impossible to be Actual* Pop and Actual Rock simultaneously!"

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

the lex just claimed this: is he korrekt?

my response = it is NOT COMMON CERTAINLY but it has happened, like a kind of harmonic convergence within recorded music after -- with things after never the same as before

for example:
i. stones
ii. sabbaf
iii. slade/pistols (=essentially the same thing anyway)
iv. pulp fiction inspired resurgence of SURF sound

obv plenty of bands have been one then the other but not simultaneously, and some have even switched back again

*note use of ACTUAL here must not be employed in any kind of essentialist slipperiness, bcz that kind of behaviour is INDIE

Comments

[juror8.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was my thought exactly, I couldn't stomach another 200 posts of "Why aren't Zoviet France on the cover this week, that's how you sell newspapers?".

What's interesting to remember is the last time rock music outsold indie in the UK (99/00), the NME's response was to go to bat for REAL rock music: QOTSA won album of the year, they put Amen of all fucking people on the cover, the idea was "Yeah, Kerrang has all the big shorts/Alien Ant Farm stuff, but we have Proper Rock Music". I suppose perhaps at heart there's always been an "admiration" for Real Rock amongst the indie-rock base, even if there's been no desire to listen to it.

But it's hard to argue that the kids who are listening to MCR and FOB these days would have been the ones listening to Papa Roach and Staind six years ago, so why has the NME embraced them? Is it just simple economics? Is it the fault of The Killers? Also, haircut indie is quite spectacularly and insularly British (I mean, fuck, these bands use the word "Albion" unironically), so why would their fans also fall for one of the most American of genres? Might as well put Montgomery Clift on the cover.