Modest Mouse, how did this band become famous? How did they slip past the radar?
It used to be cool the listen to Modest Mouse, I don't know, maybe it still is, but really this band is bad. I can't say that i'm totally exempt from listening to them or even saying, "man this band is totally awesome," but after trying for a few years to like them i've decided tonight, after a standard and exhaustingly taxing Modest Mouse song came on shuffle, that not only should I not like them but you shouldn't either.
So, again, how did this band become famous? I'm not talking about the process of a band becoming famous. Smart ass. I'm talking about how this band in particular was chosen by whoever or whatever makes the decisions that result in a band's popularity. After foolishly forcing their new album down my throat, once again attempting to swallow this band, first by itself, then, wrapping it in bread, cheese, yogurt, i've failed to be convinced. Now the new album is on my computer, my mp3 player, taking up space, ruining things, and I'm trying to figure out now how it is that they have come to be considered a "good band," or at least, "an edgy, unique band."
It's clear why I listened to Modest Mouse for so long: I'm a tool. I need to listen to the same shit that my friends do, just like everyone else. Well, not everyone else, some people need to find music and supply people with music, but some people, social listeners, listen to music that there friends listen to (sometimes at their own expense). I'm one of these social listeners, so I find songs like, "paper thin walls" and listen to them over and over and hope that the rest of the songs on the album begin to grow on me. Unfortunately, they never do with this band. The lyrics are the worst kind of popular tripe, and the music itself is offensive. It seems dynamic at first glance but it isn't. It's loud, and not rock and roll loud. The singer can't sing, and for that part i'm sure the guitarist can't guitar and the drummer can't drum.
Surely, though, there are a whole handfuls of people who listen to Modest Mouse because they are convince that this is a good band. Unfortunately, the case for the enjoyment of Modest Mouse is rock solid. What I mean by this is that any one fan can simply say, "fuck you Trey. Modest Mouse is good. They can sing, guitar, drum. They are musicians, and they are beautiful." This is how these people sound. I know them, and they are assholes. What I'm suggesting about this band is that they are a malapropism. They are a phenomenon that has been categorized on the wrong side of the demarcation line. This is not the bands fault. The band itself just keeps doing what it does best, instead this is the fault of a generation, who overzealously attempts to find the next progressive, edgy, unique band.
So music begins to travel in certain directions and people start to listen to music in different ways and new bands come out and try to fit a certain niche. Then that song "Float On" comes on billboard rock charts and hits number one and Modest Mouse is a fucking sensation. Of course, then, all their original fans start lashing out, saying, "those fuckers have sold out. Their old stuff is way better anyway. I wish the music industry would stop fucking everything up, etc." the whole time feeling justified to bash the band that they like/used to like because they were on board first. This is how these people sound. I know them, and their assholes. So Modest Mouse is big and huge and people all around the world really like them, but suddenly they're not so edgy, unique. Maybe they still are. But, whatever they might be, they were all over the radio for a while and popular. They had the number one song in America. So either MTV, and mainstream radio, and VH1, and whatever else is really zeroed in on the unique, edgy American music or they're into popular shit. Maybe popular shit isn't exclusively not edgy, not unique, but i don't think that's right.
To get back to what I was saying earlier when I was bashing my generation, I meant that thinking that Modest Mouse is innovative is all their fault. Modest Mouse has always been a popular band that until 2004 simply hadn't been discovered. The problem is that my friends are fooled. They believe that Modest Mouse was this Mary, this unspoiled matriarch that was born in 1996 and unfortunately folded to the riches and glamor of a corrupt and money hungry music industry. "They've sold out and fucking ruined their sound," they would say, these Modest Mouse fans. But I'm telling you, if Modest Mouse was the least bit innovative, they wouldn't suck now. Sure, their new record sold a few copies, costing still on the popularity of their 2004 success, but if they were a good band they would continue to succeed. They're not, and they don't.
Finally, I'm simply asking all of my friends who like Modest Mouse to just stop being douche bags. Concede. Tell me that i'm right and you've been wrong all along, and agree to stop lumping bands from the popular/one-hit-wonder category into the innovative/unique/good category. I'm sure Staind and whoever made music before they were smeared all over the radio.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
http://jobs.problogger.net/
I see where you're coming from Trey. Modest Mouse is kind of an acquired taste. I think a lot of people have become fans because they were TOLD that they are a good band, rather than figuring it out for themselves. It's not quite easy to fall into the swing of their music. I do like them quite a bit (and yes, mostly their older stuff) mainly because it is a little "off beat" and interesting to pick apart. Each song hits me in a different way.
My point is that everyone is going to find something a little more or less enticing in each piece of music than the next person. I'm sure there are many people out there that think Stephen Malkmus is not all that great. Kind of quirky, sings off tune, maybe not the most marketable musician in the world...but he writes great lyrics and has a style of his own. He's a genius in my mind. In my mind.
So call me an asshole if you want. BUT if I do recall correctly, when we first met and I asked you what you liked you replied, "Well, I listen to Fabolous..." etc, etc.
;)
I don't know why I just gave you shit about that.
I was about to leave a long equally rambling reply to this diatribe on modest mouse, and talk about how you're a huge asshole, and how I feel like this post is directed entirely at me, and how that's entirely unwarrented, and how they have some songs that are really entertaining, and anyone who considers Issac Brock and amazing songwriter a fool anyway, yada yada, but this comment alone deserves 3 thousands eprops, kudos, bjs, or whatever you call them.
The singer can't sing, and for that part i'm sure the guitarist can't guitar and the drummer can't drum.
That's gold.
I will comment on how I feel about modest mouse, briefly:
I've seen them live 3 times now, and they are only consistent in their mediocrity.
And, any songwriter who references Bukowski in their lyrics (let alone has an entire song named after the man) should lose their songwriting permit/license/right for at least 5 years.
And, they owe me 14 dollars for their last album, which was poo-poo on shiny plastic.
HOWEVER, they have at least 4 good songs on at least 3 of their last albums. Which isn't a glowing review, yes, but whatever, I never said they were amazing.
and FINALLY, you listen to John Mayer, and have had a lengthy article published on the subject of how much you want to S his D. I proof of this, and it's only a matter of time before it finds its way to the internets.
and finaly, despite my original disclaimer, this is an absurdly long response
p.s. you're a gaywad.
p.p.s. you also listen to ryan adams.
p.s.
lines of demarcation?
"...after trying for a few years to like them i've decided tonight, after a standard and exhaustingly taxing Modest Mouse song came on shuffle, that not only should I not like them but you shouldn't either."
Well that's not going to be a problem for me. In fact, I got started quite some time ago.
I remember their stuff, particularly their early stuff, being mildly amusing and quixotic. I wouldn't elevate it to any premium praise. Their latest song is a trendy peice of tight-pants bullshit! An assload of unambitious squibble!
Now I am going to speak for my dear friend Trey. Fans, enemies, both, don't take what Trey says to heart. He is almost as irrationally impulsive as I am. He has to feel his way through truth, which means he says things that he later has no beleif or passion for, which he can shake off at a moments notice and shatter blissfully, and that's why he is better than you.
Hey youre a complete dumbass.
You very may easily be a tool, but thats not our fault. They make good music that sounds different from 99% of the shit you hear on the radio.
I only had to read the first paragraph and a half to realize youre just some anal kid whos pissed because your music sucks. Hahah. SUCKS FOR YOU!
IM GONNA PUNCH YOU IN YOUR GLASSES, RIGHT NOW!
You listen to John Mayer then say Modest is bad? HAHAHHAHAHAH Holy fuck you need to learn some things my friend. Err friend? No, you need to learn some things my stupid ass co-human being.
Steve,
First, I am open to the idea, which you have just instantiated, that people like Modest Mouse, "Surely, though, there are a whole handfuls of people who listen to Modest Mouse because they are convince that this is a good band. Unfortunately, the case for the enjoyment of Modest Mouse is rock solid. What I mean by this is that any one fan can simply say, 'fuck you Trey. Modest Mouse is good. They can sing, guitar, drum. They are musicians, and they are beautiful.' This is how these people sound. I know them, and they are assholes."
However, from the way you have presented yourself, i'm am led to believe that you are young, and as is the case with any young person, I am willing to forgive you your trespasses.
It is also important to clarify the main point i was trying to make. I know that Modest Mouse sounds unique (i.e. "different from 99% of the shit you hear on the radio"). Unfortunately, if this is your criteria for 'Good Music,' you should not scruple to allow aberrations such as Lou Bega and Chumbawamba into the category of 'Good Music.' Indeed, many aberrations have proven themselves to produce great, original music (e.g. The Pixies, Pavement, Nirvana, maybe even Jane's Addiction, etc.), while others simply make music that sounds 'different from 99% percent of the shit on the radio.' What I am arguing is that if Modest Mouse does, in fact, make original, unique music (i am not sure that this is even true) that they are more of a 'Chumbawamba' or a 'Lou Bega' than a 'Pavement' or a 'Nirvana.' Yes, 'Mambo number 5' and 'I Get Knocked Down' are unique songs, but they are not good songs. A band is not good simply because they sound different.
In regards to your statement, "they make good music." I cannot argue that point. We simply differ in opinion. As I stated earlier, you case is completely unassailable. However, if you were older and wiser, you may run the risk of being an asshole.
"The new album was forced down your throat"
Dont write blogs about bands you know nothing about. Isaac was writing quality lyrics before you were in grade school. Just because it sounds different from the Nickleback and Incubus you listen to on the radio, doesnt make it bad.
Right, you're right. It doesn't make it bad. I've been listening to incubus and nickleback for too long. Fuck! I understand now, thank you, Daniel.
Post a Comment