poptimists | It'll Never Work

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.