It'll Never Work

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Last night I was mulling the continuing question of "Why do people like the music they like?" Then, more specifically, "Why do people make the music they make?"

And I realised what I REALLY meant was "Why do the Klaxons make the music that they do?" Personally I don't find their music particularly engaging - emotionally, technically, culturally or even as something functional to bop away my evenings to on the perma-dancefloor that is my life. Obviously some people feel differently enough to award it prizes. But let's leave personal opinions aside for the moment.

If you're not writing songs to sell records, then it seems logical to assume you are writing to please yourself. We all know the soundbite from songwriting acts who claim to 'do it for the fans', but I call b0ll0cks on that - performers write songs that they enjoy performing.

I don't know if the Klaxons were actually aiming at a genuine mix of guitar-indie and electronic-rave (as is the general media impression)*. If they were, then the lack of the variety in their instrumentation is baffling, especially given their major label backing (and I assume budget) to explore the range of awesome rave-friendly noises at their disposal.

Bedroom rave (i.e. knocked together in a weekend by spotty kid with a turntable and an Atari) obviously has a much wider range of sounds and layers than bedroom indie - a few well chosen samples can free a performer from technical restraints of learning how to play the church organ (bulky) or violin (when you really need a whole string section), or finding/paying someone who does to play that part for them. Plenty of guitar bands merrily give their sound extra whoomph with some electronic help, good for them. But for a band with two keyboard players, seemingly the Klaxons either can't or won't move away from the (rockist?) notion of 'we have to make all the noises ourselves LIVE, out of REAL instruments', which I assume led to the appointment of their Actually Terrible live drummer. Compared to e.g. Dragonette (who keep the traditional guitars/drums line up but with a reasonable level of pre-programming), the Klaxons seem determined to tie their shoelaces with their hands behind their backs (unless I'm wrong about their footwear ambitions, and they're actually not even wearing shoes).

I'm reluctant to write off the Klaxons completely as I've not listened to their album in full, but 100% of their songs I've heard seem to have little or no musical difference to any of the current crop of guitar-based busker bands (the eponymous siren excepted). This is absolutely fine if you like guitar-based music and shouting and going 'oooo-ee-ooo-eee-ooo-ee-ooo, aaa-aah'. If all the Klaxons set out to do was guitar-led homages to the 'spirit' of rave, they've probably succeeded. But it feels like they haven't even TRIED to add any 'rave' elements (beats, layers, variety, fun) to their guitar music. And I really want to see if someone CAN do it successfully (i.e. if not winning the Mercury Prize, then at least sneering at it over 5 pages in the Observer).

Above I said they apparently "can't or won't" leave their rockism behind. Could this be Britpop's fault? Steal the tune from whoever you like, as long as you're playing the guitar yourself? The Klaxons are of the right age to be first-degree Britpop victims (as was I). Their methodology certainly doesn't mesh together with the rave mindset - steal the tune AND person playing it, as long as it sounds good on drugs - but of course I could be on the wrong drugs. With time and money and experience, the majority of artists' musical/cultural/social directions evolve to include a broader sonic range - New Order are the most glaring example I can think of right now. I really hope that Britpop hasn't instilled a mental block on my generation that means experimentation and interpolation of existing genres is stalling.

OR perhaps it's the ages at which the Klaxons were immersed in rave and Britpop - when do the critical faculties mature beyond "everything I listen to is either i) awesome ii) rubbish" and into "this is good enough that I want to make similar music myself"? (I'm fairly sure it was around age 13 for me.) Or is this just a 90's thing as well? My background knowledge and time run out here so I can't expand further.

OR perhaps it's the other bonkers theory I thought up at 1am last night that I can't actually remember.

Postscript: It's difficult to write about topics like this without my conclusions being steered by my personal experience of performing and songwriting. Elastica's deceptively basic line up inspired me to learn the guitar - "I could SO do that!" - just as hundreds of punk bands formed after watching the Sex Pistols. Perhaps if I'd been that impressionable four or five years earlier I would have gone out and bought myself a 303 instead of a Telecaster?

*In fact, not being psychic, this entire post is built on rather a lot of speculation. But even if the Klaxons themselves don't fit my theory above, I think the whole idea of 'nu-rave' in general does.

Right, I'm off down the pub.

Comments

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I think yr right about the interesting qn re the Klaxons being "well where's the rave then???" - thing is I don't know if their being more rave would actually WORK for them, you might just end up with a really feeble Brit version of 'dance-punk', which nobody needs at all. Or Campag Velocet or something. It's not as if "mixing rock and rave" hasn't been tried!

I think the band are trying hard not to be Busker Indie - good for them - and occasionally they get into spaces where they can do (I think) v.enjoyable wiggy stuff. (In old school terms they're a psych band and nothing but, basically). If I had to guess what they were after I'd say they were trying to get away from the idea that bands need a connection to 'real life' (lyrical/musical), which is Busker Indie's big thing (which is in fact the big thing in all of the new British pop stuff). But as you say they're unwilling to stop being A Band in formal and instrumental terms to achieve this. Maybe they don't need to, they just need to hit the rich seam more regularly.

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not more rave that's actually required, it's a willingness to step outside the live guitar/bass/drums thing. I really don't know why they are so tied to it, judging by their shockingly poor Glastonbury performance they're no good at playing live anyway.

Then again, they're hardly unique in this; you could probably make a case that most post-Britpop British indie suffers from the exactly the same problem. Fear of stepping away from conventional rock band formats + inability to actually rock = utter rub.

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

the only person doing conventional rock band formats in 2007 who ACTUALLY ROCKS is kelly clarkson, who basically sounds like hole with a more conventionally competent singer on her new album (with the advent of autumn it has emerged on to my ipod again!)

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

And Rihanna :)

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

B-but all New Order songs apart from The Hit sound the same!

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Compare and contrast: Blue Monday / Regret

Argh drunken comments, take with p of s

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

or Confusion / True Faith - lyrically still quite similar, musically evolved to maturity beyond NY electro and into pop production angst

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Blue Monday is The Hit, though.

[ultraruby.livejournal.com]

From something I read recently I gather that the 'rave' bit was less a definition of the music itself than some kind of joke-ish name someone put on this big guitary music to kind of frame it as some bit of the of zeitgeist. So, like rave BACK THEN had a definite sound and a way of dressing and it was for The Young People and felt sort of shambolic-but-good, and it burned brightly before sort of dissapearing, and maybe that's what this sort of new rave is meant to do, even though the music is totally different. And it's true that they're sort of taking the spirit on, taking the (and this might be my own made up word but I like it) anthemism of rave, and of some of Britpop, and just going with it.

But then in my opinion it's just silly to nick a word like rave, because it's still very much owned by people from the first time round. Like when 'acid jazz' nicked 'jazz'. Maybe, sort of.

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

That makes it even worse, though! Rave was "we are the future, we have come for your children!". If the Klaxons are having a joke with genre, like "what would be to rave like nu-metal was to metal", then that's certainly something worth doing, particularly if it gets a few more column inches to a better-than-average band. But if they actually think it's going to be 1988: Rave. 2007: Nu-Rave then that's just rubbish.

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

If the Klaxons are having a joke with genre, like "what would be to rave like nu-metal was to metal"

-that's pretty much how i read them. that and a good dose of KLF/drummond-style bullshit

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Aha I was listening to What Time Is Love? this morning and thinking how well they'd incorporated the guitar element for extra OOMPH but still made the 'ung-nang-nang-nim-nom-nang' bit the focus for the greater good.

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

the rave thing is mostly a red-herring, this much has been established. they are easily more psych/prog if you listen to the album. what they are bordering on is the whole guitar dance scene (Van She, James Ford, Justice etc) that's feeding the klaxons-as-rave misreading. it's their own fault of course with the joke genre name.

what you were saying about enjoying performing, and your own Elastica-inspired drive to play the geetar, probably has more to say on the klaxons - they WANT to play these instruments, they WANT a live drummer. they also like dance music, and this is in accord with your "if all the Klaxons set out to do was guitar-led homages to the 'spirit' of rave, they've probably succeeded"

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

if they really liked dance music they would not do guitar-led homages to the 'spirit' of it so that theory's dead in the water

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Counter example: Clocks.

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

that doesn't follow at all, lex.

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

Doing crap covers of dance classice doesn't exactly help with the misreading thing either.

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

i tend to agree. i don't find the grace cover entirely crap tho, either. it's not great, i'll grant.

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

The Grace cover annoys me so much because a straightforwardly fattened and boshed up remix or re-recording would be both amazing and v.easy to do. But no, they had to make it sound tinny and whiny.

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

i've been trying to think if i have heard cover versions that offend or annoy me, and i realise that there have been quite a few, and it is always indie bands sucking the life out of previously unalloyed pleasures. so i do have some sympathy.

covers are an odd thing - perhaps worthy of a poptimist thread of their own. i tend to like em more than most, dislike slavish versions and have no truck with the rockist "desecration" line of though. i imagine that's the mode approach. same goes for film remakes.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

It's in the exact same lineage as Travis' Britney cover, though I doubt Cacksons realise that.

Guitar-dance

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Although Justice & co are undeniably popular, no-one's coined a snappy name for the music they make. And... it all seems quite serious, like Xtrmntr-era Primal Scream! Again that's no bad thing in itself, good luck to them. But rave it ain't. Will anything ever be rave ever again? *wails*

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

I don't know if this was your experience, but when I was (do?) performing, trying to integrate sequenced stuff was super hard and really made the performance a lot more powerful. Acts that were, well, technically more accomplished than me and mine could do it, but comparing gigs we did with keyboards and live drums to ones with a CD backing (with or without a drummer playing along) the non-sequenced performances could go a lot smoother because there was more room for errors to be corrected, and there was a lot more dynamism than you get with sequenced stuff. I think it's safe to say I have yet to see a live performance with mixed samples and live instruments be as successful as either one with all-live or all-sequenced stuff.

My experience!

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

My band was a no-frills guitar/bass/drums combo - no effects pedals or distortion or anything - I don't think any samples would have kept time with our jazz drummer! One of my old bands had live guitar/bass and a drum machine backing (because we had to sack our drummer, god she was awful) which worked *reasonably* well but er, we only ever did 2 gigs.

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Basically, yeah, I enjoy the music that they make, but I am a bit depressed that in 2007 it appears that people are still going "Let's make a band! First, we're going to need some guitars"

[ultraruby.livejournal.com]

Tsk! That's a rubbish way to start. The correct thing to think is 'first, we'll need a really cool name'. Klaxons is a rub name. Also it is misleading. Therefore boo Klaxons.

[ultraruby.livejournal.com]

(boo also not being sure if there is a 'the')

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Actually in fairness I'm being a bit hypocritical because I do wuv guitars and I think there are still nice sounds to be made and my eventual indulgent band will definitely have at least a bass in it. But I do actually think it's unconscionable that the next thing they think is "... and we'll need a drummer".

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

I think you'll find that next thought should actually read "...and we'll need someone who owns a drumkit and can't actually be arsed learning to play it, but can sort of keep time-ish, providing they don't try and do anything too complicated, like, I dunno, a paradiddle".

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Haha yeah, but that's why they really need a drum machine!

[jauntyalan.livejournal.com]

the reuniting carter gig is on your mind, right? :-D

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha.. yes.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Guitars can be so awesome! But they needn't be the vocal majority. In the current glut they seem like the easy option. I want NEW AWESOME WONDROUS MIRACLE not stuff I could play myself with my eyes shut way better than them, ie exact opposite attitude to 16 year old Kat. Hence my current taste for minimal and heavily produced pop - there's no way I could top that. I clearly should listen to more prog or something.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Well there's a difference between saying "Let's make music!" and "Let's form a band!" - there are lots of people saying the former and not reaching for the AXES.

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, that's true, just recent encounters with some of Ver Kids who still don't consider it real music unless it's got guitars. Which I should be used to by now.

STILL DRNK, NOT MY FAULT IF IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Yes BUT they're not getting signed. How can non-traditional & experimental bands be successful against the onslaught of indie wrongery when the pseudo nonsense Klaxons seems to be What The Kids Want for their revolution? Am I just annoyed that my 'revolution' was Britpop and I have been totally cheated?

Re: STILL DRNK, NOT MY FAULT IF IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

No no that's not what I'm saying. People wanting to make music that isn't rock-band-y don't form bands (& still get signed, often as solo artists, or at least get work as producers or remixers).

Re: STILL DRNK, NOT MY FAULT IF IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes I read that wrong. Booze there, marvellous.

MOAR DRUNK KAT

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Thing I've just thought of: that Hocus Pocus Focus song Mark S sent me for the League Of Pop- it's TOTALLY rave in it's structure (well obv it's prog, but there's so many different sounds and sections - yodelling, accordion, distorted guitar, weedle-oo guitar, crowd noise - that should really be impossible to generate by normal human standards - building up and up until one's brain actually explodes. I guess they were on the right drugs.

Re: MOAR DRUNK KAT

[braisedbywolves.livejournal.com]

Lord Rockingham invented Rave!

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

This is tough to get a handle on without input from the klaXors themselves. I am reminded of both jazz and sports like football and tennis, where my usual reaction is "more fun to do than watch." What I mean by that in this case is that maybe the ravey stuff you feel they are lacking is not something they actually want, because a) they enjoy actually the physical action of producing it as much (or to some degree more than) the actual audible end product; or b) the sounds they have in their heads they are unable to (competently) pull off. (And maybe they will become more skilled over time.)

If I'm considering it from the performers' point of view, I really don't see anything wrong with wanting to make the noises themselves. Playing music is/can be fun in and of itself.

(The physicality aspect actually seems like a potentially interesting thread for someone to mine, btw)

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is another area I meant to expand upon yesterday but ran out of time. I think the conclusion I was veering towards was that it's extremely difficult to make coherent music that fits the 'rave' description when you're reluctant to move away from the standard guitar/drums line-up, so we can only assume the Klaxons won't (a) or can't (b). Wanting to play live music is clearly laudable, but I am disappointed that they have a good idea and haven't built upon it AT ALL but the media consensus (poptimists excluded) seems to be that they HAVE!

As regards the physicality point, I wonder if there is also the reverse - the music you listen to obv influences what music you make, but does the music you make influence the music you listen to?

[bengraham.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced there's really any rave element to their music (siren excluded). I think of them as an indie-rock group. And as such, I think their album holds up pretty well against other indie-rock albums that have been released in the last 6 months to a year i.e The Enemy DIE DIE DIE, The View etc. At least Klaxons appear to have attempted to go down a slightly different path, even if they largely failed in that attempt. In any event, 'Atlantis to Interzone' is a great song (and probably the most rave-like that they have achieved), particularly with its random time-shifts and screamy chorus overlayed with space-age backing vocals.

The drummer is pretty shit though. But I think they do still use drum tracks in their live shows as well.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I still don't really understand why stepping away from the voc/gtr/bss/drm line-up is needed rather than doing what they do better?

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

i understood kat to be saying, essentially, that the standard line up has been done to death, or at least so deeply mined that nothing is going to surprise her. and (further) that OMGWOW!1!! is part of what she wants from rave/dance

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Well, I really hope they will improve! I'm not sure if the Klaxons are the band to do this, but they're the ones in the spotlight and receiving plaudits for capturing the 2007 zeitgeist. I mentioned the bedroom sampling above because that's an easy way to add Instant Awesome to your music, and they need all the help they can get in that area. Argh I am being quite protective of rave throughout this thread - it just feels WRONG when people misappropriate it for earthly gain!

Thank you for the scenesters, the songs they're mixing

[celentari.livejournal.com]

This might just be because I'm encountering it now and actually it has always been happening, but I think there is more cross-pollination of genre than there used to be, but that new rave ain't it.

I think new rave baffles because it is aimed at people younger than us who just want something to dance/listen to with a different label to what their elder siblings listened/danced to, and that half the point is older people telling them it's nonsense. This is what you want to be told when you're 15 - you need your own subculture.

Mid-twenty somethings who jumped on the new rave bandwagon are, I believe, yearning for a second attempt at teenage hood: most people I know who embraced new rave didn't have a particularly successful shot at being "cool" when they were a teenager, and this seems to offer a second chance to be part of a "scene" - and again, if other people don't get it, that is so much the better.

In summary: new rave - Not About The Music.