Well, they're stupid. Anyone who gets nominated for a Grammy isn't anything close to being hipster.

 

 

 

And I agree. The word "Hipster"is bankrupt, really.

 

Animal Collective on the other hand seem to revel in sabotaging some of their work in order to seem cool. Overproduction and too many layers pad out some of their lesser works, but people still lap it up. Now that is hipster. Good band though.

lol

I don't see what the big deal is about being different, honestly. I listen to what sounds good. I don't care how mainstream it is; if I like it, I like it.

 

Fair enough. But they are going to have to do something different next time around. You can only listen to an Irish accent and a banjo for so long. Their songs have already started sounding the same. Like The National, though at least they have plenty of songs.

Well, I look at it through the philosophy of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I find that if something really works for a band, and if I like a certain sound or feel that a band has, it's fine with me if they stick with it. I know there have been times when bands have tried a different approach to things and have it turn out pretty bad. Keane is a good example of this. It seems to me that with each release, they get progressively worse. This isn't to say that I don't like Keane, because I do, but after the whole thing with "Night Train," I'm worried that there will be a point where I'll become annoyed with them because they keep changing things they shouldn't have changed, and the changes they've made have actually been detrimental to their music.

 

Hopefully, that made sense. Sorry, I tend to ramble sometimes. :tongue:

It does make sense yes. And there are plenty of bands where I agree with you. The Strokes, Kings Of Leon, The White Stripes. I don't like their newer material generally. On the other hand, they did have to evolve, otherwise they would have gone stale. There are few bands I can point out who can release five albums without changing, otherwise they always seem to water down. The true iconic bands are the ones who change and stay good, minus a few blips, unless of course their approach is radically different and therefore an album or two can inspire whole genres and sub genres etc.

I'd have to disagree with you on The Strokes, but that's because I'm still very new to them, and I started with "Angles." As far as The White Stripes, while I like them for an occasional listen, they're not something that I feel compelled to listen to on a regular basis. I don't know, there's just something that I feel is lacking or something.

 

I will say that I fully agree with the last bit about the iconic bands, though.

Fair enough, that's where difference of opinion comes in, and that's fine :)

I do think if you'd followed The Strokes from the start you might have a different opinon on them though. We'll never know though.

Yeah, probably. Oh well. :tongue: :smiley:

Also, how are Animal Collective hipster? (I have a feeling I might regret asking this question...)

 

I don't think they are a hipster band I know they are a hipster band :smug: :P

 

Animal Collective are a hipster band.

 

 

UGH, it's just that in my opinion they're one of the greatest bands, ever. Albums like Campfire Songs, Feels, Strawberry Jam etc are incredible. really. They're hipster because of the Merriweather Post Pavillion thing really. P4K and everyone picked up on that album and hyped it up like crazy, but the thing is, it's not that great. Compared to Animal Collectives other work it's just pretty average, really.

 

ghhh :(

I don't think they are a hipster band I know they are a hipster band :smug: :P

 

 

I'd agree for the most part. I think that Coldplay and Muse will continue to be extremely popular bands throughout this upcoming decade. I'd also agree with Lady Gaga perhaps too. I mean I don't really remember an artist that got as big as her in such a little bit of time especially seeming to come out of nowhere. Though who knows, perhaps she might only have an initial popular effect

 

I would have to disagree. I think that they seem to be more of the two popular artists of the alternative genre. So being that of course there will be a lot of bands trying to copy them (Keane)

 

and I have to disagree with you, Keane is in no way trying to copy someone, yeah I know that their influences show easily, but it's clear you haven't really listened to ALL the Keane work, their last work is not very ground breaking, and I recognize the media hasn't helped a lot , they have bad fame now , since they released the 2 second album nobody cares about them, but I assure you that it would be foolish to ignore the creativity and good music that their first 2 albums have, there's plenty of differences and not many similarites between Keane and other bands, I think it's knot fair to say they copy the others just because the got together as a band round the same time and they have the same influences.

 

Sorry if I sounded rude, I never meant it , just what I think :thinking:

It's hard to predict which bands will become really prominent... there are so many different varieties of music that it is hard to group them all together and determine who is the biggest/best overall.

 

As long as it's not the Black Eyed Peas I don't care. :P

there's plenty of differences and not many similarites between Keane and other bands

 

Have you ever taken a listen to Thirteen Senses? They and Keane sound an awful lot alike. Not that this is a problem, as I love that type of music, anyway, but still.

 

As long as it's not the Black Eyed Peas I don't care. :P

 

Excellent answer.

The decade will be known for whichever bands the music critics tells us it will be known for.

Anyone who says that musicians aren't influential because they sound like the mainstream are missing the point that influential musicians shape what the mainstream sounds like, or as seen as doing such. Generally the most famous (hence considered the most influential) musicians of any genre are the ones who did the genre with the same attitude as everyone else, but did it exceptionally well. Were the Beatles totes camotes original in the purest sense of the word? Not quite, they were original, don't get me wrong, but they were good because they fit in with the music of their times. You have to work within the mainstream and do the mainstream very well to be considered influential.

 

I'm too indie to consider mainstream-sounding bands as doing what they do exceptionally well most of the time though so I'd be bad at suggesting something here.

Look at you, with your abundance of indie cred. :charming:

Anyone who says that musicians aren't influential because they sound like the mainstream are missing the point that influential musicians shape what the mainstream sounds like, or as seen as doing such. Generally the most famous (hence considered the most influential) musicians of any genre are the ones who did the genre with the same attitude as everyone else, but did it exceptionally well.

 

When I mentioned the mainstream I meant that they recorded their music with the mainstream in mind and made certain sacrifices or watered down what they had to say for commercial success. I'm not the kind of person who doesn't like something just because it's popular (I like two Britney songs), although there is generally a correlation between a band with a cult or genre based following but limited commercial success and their movement to a more mainstream prominence as usually being a negative one.

 

To music fans (i.e not somebody who just bases their musical opinion on the radio and actively seeks new material whether through live venues and record stores - as people would have done in the past - or the internet nowadays) the icons aren't usually mainstream as such. It's harder for me to say as I know the American chart system has so many facets to it, whereas the UK's is pretty much just about the one chart.

 

In this country, talking to music fans, if you were asked who the icons were in the 80's - Wham!, Spandau Ballet and Bananarama or The Smiths, Echo & The Bunnymen and The Cure then there's only be one answer. That's what I mean by the mainstream in this sense, and I think my nationality distorts the word for myself as I see it as a different thing. If I was to describe something as 'more mainstream' then I'd mean more produced and accessible usually, but to describe something as straight up mainstream I'd mean it was made for the chart in mind, or at least it appears that way.

 

And of course the terms icon and mainstream aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to those who I classed as 'music fans', but those icons are few and far between in comparison.

It's not really about the thread subject ...

But I'm not familiar with the word "hipster"

I see it everywhere , but I can't really understand what wikipedia defines it...

 

So could anyone please explain it in your own words please ?

It's not really about the thread subject ...

But I'm not familiar with the word "hipster"

I see it everywhere , but I can't really understand what wikipedia defines it...

 

So could anyone please explain it in your own words please ?

 

 

and there's a band i hope does big things through 2010-2020. probably one of the best live bands going around. quality epitomised.

i dunno im pretty proud of my joke

who is it? :anxious:

 

edit: foals?

Foals are pretty good. But hipster, yeah.

 

I'm annoyed at myself sometimes for listening to so much hipster music because I don't like hipsters but I can't help it because it's just good. :sad:

The hipster culture is about way more than just the music, though, so you shouldn't feel too bad. At any rate, if you like it, that's what's important, and it shouldn't (and doesn't) matter whether one can call it "hipster" or not.

Indeed.

 

Also, how are Animal Collective hipster? (I have a feeling I might regret asking this question...)

 

I went to one of their shows, and it was filled with a bunch of Indie kids, and they just annoyed the hell out of me. They're the kind of music that people who want to be cool and indie in like high school love and consider them their favorite band. Like I remember actually in HS my brother's grade had all of his friends loving the band. And also there were a few open mic nights where people played songs and they were so pretencious in trying to act the same way as them.

 

Animal Collective on the other hand seem to revel in sabotaging some of their work in order to seem cool. Overproduction and too many layers pad out some of their lesser works, but people still lap it up. Now that is hipster. Good band though.

 

I think that's it, they try to seem all cool and these indie kids lap it up.

 

 

UGH, it's just that in my opinion they're one of the greatest bands, ever. Albums like Campfire Songs, Feels, Strawberry Jam etc are incredible. really. They're hipster because of the Merriweather Post Pavillion thing really. P4K and everyone picked up on that album and hyped it up like crazy, but the thing is, it's not that great. Compared to Animal Collectives other work it's just pretty average, really.

 

ghhh :(

 

I think their good, but I wouldn't consider them one of the best ever.

 

and I have to disagree with you, Keane is in no way trying to copy someone, yeah I know that their influences show easily, but it's clear you haven't really listened to ALL the Keane work, their last work is not very ground breaking, and I recognize the media hasn't helped a lot , they have bad fame now , since they released the 2 second album nobody cares about them, but I assure you that it would be foolish to ignore the creativity and good music that their first 2 albums have, there's plenty of differences and not many similarites between Keane and other bands, I think it's knot fair to say they copy the others just because the got together as a band round the same time and they have the same influences.

 

Sorry if I sounded rude, I never meant it , just what I think :thinking:

You're right, I haven't really listened to them, but I remember when their first album came out the one thing EVERYONE said was that they were a coldplay knock off band.

They're one of my favourite bands, and I never even knew they were "indie" or "hipster" for the longest time. :|

It's not really about the thread subject ...

But I'm not familiar with the word "hipster"

I see it everywhere , but I can't really understand what wikipedia defines it...

 

So could anyone please explain it in your own words please ?

 

I was looking for and i found that it mean "modern" or something about that... or fashion (in) too...

 

but i found that is a group trying to be out of fashion

 

i'm not sure if they mean that