Delphic: Behind the times already?

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Just wondering if anyone else saw this article about Delphic on the BBC today.

While this isn't any sort of comment on Delphic's music, I found some of the remarks frustrating:

They are not, they say, a bog standard indie band of the sort that was in plentiful supply when they formed in 2007. They are not one of the many electro acts that, they feel, caused dance music to lose its soul. And they are definitely not one of those groups still desperately clinging to the Madchester glory days.

Are we *still* fighting these battles? Do we still have to "prove" that dance music can have soul, and that guitars have something to offer? Really?

I dunno, what do other poptimists think? Am I getting mildly irked over nothing?

Comments

query

[mrs-leroy-brown.livejournal.com]

Uhm, genre knowing !fail!, but what does electro even MEAN???

Re: query

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming in this case it means La Roux and Frankmusik and C***in H***is and what have you.

Someone from Delphic was interviewed on Radio 1 (BBC Switch) on Sunday - I think it's the same dude the Beeb website spoke to. He came across as a bit of a tool - "so basically, what yr saying is that you wanna be a slightly more rock version of Klaxons" was my reaction. Tempting therefore just to dismiss this article.

That said, I can perfectly understand why new bands want to re-fight what the more long in the tooth might regard as old battles. You have to distinguish yourself somehow!

Re: query

[chezghost.livejournal.com]

yeah electro has come to mean anything where there's more synth usage than guitars, pretty much

Re: query

[martinv.livejournal.com]

You have to distinguish yourself somehow!

Especially when your music is as utterly bland and lifeless as Delphic's...

Re: query

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

He came across as a bit of a tool - "so basically, what yr saying is that you wanna be a slightly more rock version of Klaxons" was my reaction.

Hah, yes, I was thinking something not dissimilar! I think I just found the pointless antagonism and bigging-up element ("we're better than all the other shit bands who are a bit like us!") tiring. Still, I suppose that's The Gallagher Model for you...

Re: query

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

"You can have any music you want, providing it's predominantly electronic".

*shrug*

I think this is a good example of a pretty non-descriptive description, myself.

Re: query

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Miaow ;-)

[koganbot]

Are we *still* fighting these battles?

Well, it depends whom you mean by "we," but yes, variations on these battles have been occurring since the 1920s - probably since the 1720s or whenever someone invented "romanticism," though in the 1720s they may not have been discussing electro and Madchester. (I was born in Manchester Hospital, by the way, though it was the one in Connecticut.) These battles have to do on the one hand with dominant social groups thinking that what they pay attention to is more worthy than what others pay attention to, but also, on the other, with people (some within those dominant groups) specifically looking for the Worthy and the Real outside themselves and their group, and so forming new worthiness and realness that then get taken up as The Worthy and The Real etc. and on and on, and since new people keep getting born the cycle continues.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I very much agree with you on the general point (I am not going to divert into a huge ramble about romanticism or I'd be here all day). However, I can't believe the members of Delphic are so very young that they've not encountered any discussion on these points before. It seems more likely, therefore, that it's a conscious choice to be confrontational. But in opposition to what? To whom? It seems like an excessive lot of puffery, and a missed opportunity to talk about what one is, as opposed to what one isn't. I suppose I might show more sympathy if they appeared to be making incisive/valid criticisms of the artists they don't want to be, but it all sounds a bit, I dunno, second hand? Received wisdom of the ages, kinda thing?

Does that make sense?

[koganbot]

Yes, it makes sense.

It's often a lot easier to figure out what one isn't than what one is.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

I think it can *seem* easier, defining the negative. But I also think it's often a distraction, and so what? It's not that great music hasn't been created as part of reactions against things in the past, but it's also probably useful to have an idea of what one's aiming for. I wouldn't buy a record on the basis that it's "not-x" - would many people?

[awesomewells.livejournal.com]

Ummm, I think they're saying there's long been soul in dance music but it's disappeared with the advent of Calvin Harris et al. Which is wrong, but yeah, you're getting mildly irked over nothing.

The album is weird, the band have this awesome flurry of Ewan Pearson trancey-production swirling round them but the band themselves are a bit of a charisma-free void in the middle of it.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

It's a bit unclear to me what's an accurate representation of the band's position and what's poor BBC summing-up.

Your description is great, and does resonate with me over the few bits of their music I've heard, where they sound exciting for about 0.02 secs and then...

...

*tumbleweed*

[rechabite.livejournal.com]

What they're choosing to do, FOT, is annoy people like you. And it would appear that they've succeeded!

I don't mind them doing the big sell because they're one of the few acts doing it the right way round - i.e. get your music out, and THEN do the big mouth hype about it. The album is pretty terrific and at least they have opinions.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Surely everyone has "opinions", though? Is that notable in itself?

Are ther really setting out to annoy people? Seems like a poor use of time when they could be, I dunno, making music or something. Not sure I get the point of that.

[rechabite.livejournal.com]

Well, they're annoying you, aren't they? And of course it's never just about the music, although perhaps you haven't reached that chapter in the handbook yet.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Not sure I get your reference to 'the handbook' there - care to expand?

'Annoy' is a bit strong. And I very much doubt observers are meant to take any of it personally.