Guardian article on non-futurist pop

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

http://music.guardian.co.uk/pop/story/0,,2060953,00.html

Bands be borrowin'.

This is under discussion elsewhere on the interwebs but I thought I'd tap the wisdom of the Poptimist crowd.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"My yardstick about modern records," he says, "is does it sound as though it could only have been recorded in 2007? If it does, great; if it doesn't, boring."

Hmmm.

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

Haven't read the whole article yet, but I also went hmmm at that bit.

When I was 21 I would have been very adamant about the need for pop music to be constantly moving forward, like a shark, or it would be dead.

Nowadays I'm less bothered. As koganbot is forever pointing out in posts to this Community, a large part of the history of pop is people attempting to borrow from something else that has preceded it but fucking it up and creating something new (and sometimes as interesting) in the process.

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

and FWIW I don't hear Mika or Amy Winehouse as carbon copies of what it is they are supposedly imitating. In fact they do feel more like the sound of '07 than the sound of '67 or '77 to me.

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

absolutely. the only regressive thing in the article is the attitude that the article takes up.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

My take is that I don't mind retrogressive, ersatz artists - I love Winehouse! - but to have the market so filled with different types of retro, to have very little sense that somewhere someone is moving forward like a shark, is dispiriting.