Well, I just so happened to stumble across the NME today on my travels to the library (or, the WH Smith in the train station as I believe it is called) and as ever, I wasn't surprised. Reading the album reviews I flicked forward see what the mag had to say about an eagerly anticipated release from one of my favourite bands, R.E.M (to whom I am indebted to for the name of this blog), and their new album Collapse Into Now. Having heard many of the tracks from their album through releases and authorised leaks, I can safely say that the tracks offer a diverse range of styles, while still sounding incredibly R.E.M.
After 30 years, it would seem blatantly obvious that a band would have a defined sound and style that sets them apart from the rest, and perhaps one who have been so successful at what they've done would stick within a formula that has proved a hit one. However, the NME appear to believe this not so. It does appear that their "journalists" slag off an album for sounding too much like a band's other previous work. Let me understand this. Does the NME want a jazz or hip hop record from Stipe and Co, or perhaps a chamber music arrangement? Constant lazy journalistic comparisons with Automatic For The People and Out of Time seem somewhat trite, because the irony of the album review which criticises an 'unoriginal' album is in fact a re-hash of every previous review of R.E.M. albums since 1992. It does appear they are far too busy writing reviews about "new up and coming bands" who are making "the hottest record in the world" in an attempt to create almost nightmarish, Zane Lowe ruled Indie world that is becoming less of a nightmare, and an unfortunate reality. I just feel that ultimately, a band shouldn't be criticised for sounding like themselves- it is a credit to an artist who manages to continue over such a course of time- it is bands who sound like other bands that is a problem. Why is it acceptable for a band to sound exactly the same as another band, a la the thousands of bland and generic bands like Frankie and The Heartstrings and the many other terrible bands to be proclaimed as the messiahs of music despite sounding identical to any other indie group, when a band who invents their own unique sound is pilloried for it? This isn't me defending a band whom I admire as I couldn't possibly pass judgement until I sit and hear the whole record, but I find this whole argument very tedious. Having said that, it is safe to say if the NME told me the sky was blue, I'd have to check as that is how much regard I hold it's opinions. It is too frequently trying to give 16-18 year olds a condensed, simpleton version of "100 albums to hear before you die" so that scenesters can purchase the correct clothing attire to seem "hip" it would appear.
I really do look forward to reading the NME's arse kissing review of the new Arctic Monkeys album as per usual, even though it won't be the original pseudo-jazz and soul hybrid the reviewers crave. It does seem bizarre to criticise unoriginality in an age where we are pretty much living in the age of the re-hash- nothing original has been produced since the seventies really if Adorno is to be believed, so make of this what you will. Having said all these, opinions are like arseholes, everyone has got one and most stink- it seems that the NME just happens to have one much bigger and smellier one than most other people.
It is literally impossible to win with the NME. I used to love The Rakes (RIP). NME savaged their second album because it was "too different" from the first, so they made their third album more like the first and NME had a go because it wasn't different enough. Eurgh.
ReplyDelete