"Template" rock bands
Every so often there comes a rock act which enjoys a “B+” level of international success – not quite reaching that premier league of the Beatles, The Stones, Bowie, Led Zeppelin, U2 etc- but doing pretty nicely for themselves nonetheless, with a sound that somehow represents a commercial “template” for many other B grade acts of their time.
And they’re not “influential” in the manner of a Lou Reed or a Pink Floyd, either. In fact, you’ll hardly remember them 10 years after their peak. They won’t make classic radio play lists either. Rather, they neatly set the water mark for a particular sub-genre at a particular time- analogous to, say, the median 4 bedroom house price in Malibu, or a certain share-market index.
You can pick up one of their records and find yourself thinking : “Ah, yes, that’s what 1997 sounded like – when I was thirty five.. it was a very good year”.
Now these acts needn’t have created the sound by which they are identified - that’s not the point. What they (and their producers) do is "reverse engineer" a particular song writing and production approach which , once successful, gets flogged to death by the major labels - much the same way that American TV networks squeeze the life out of a good TV show until we wish that it had never been born. All bands have their influences, of course, but these acts seem to have sacrificed all artistic discretion to "stick with the program" - slavishly chiselling their albums from the prevailing (commercially successful) sonic reference points, in a way that almost "codifies" them for that particular sub genre.
Put shortly – these bands are as annoying as fuck.
1. Pearl Jam
A stool wrapped in a plaid shirt. For way too much of the 1990s Pearl Jam were a staple of male menopause FM radio around the world. Awful, awful stuff. The interesting thing about Pearl Jam is that those acts accused of imitating them were consistently shit loads better. Exhibit A for the prosecution: Stone Temple Pilots.
2. Live
The scourge of the new century. Yet another clown with a shaved head and butt-clenchingly earnest "EMO" vocals poured over bechamel thick overdriven guitars. A bombastic drummer who just can’t keep those high hats closed - except for the mandatory “quite bit”. There’s a superficial presentment of something passionate and powerful going on- but in substance its all about as meaty as a Wagyu beef smoothie.
Production wise, this is corporate rock at its most inane - comprehensively neutered for the benefit of nervous A&R men and the band's suburban fanbase. Live's songs are often described as “anthemic”.
Hitler did a nice line in that, too.
3. Nickelback
All of the above, with extra maple syrup please! No one does corporate rock like the Canadians, but these guys seem to be omnipresent at the moment. Lyrics are so exceedingly obvious that he simply must be taking the piss.
The Nickleback sound represents, I think, the most strident rock template in the market at this time – five string bass with guitars pushing out a glossy take on late California “nu metal” power chords. So as not to disorientate the listener, the lead vocal is always treated with the same effect chain and doubled in the verses, tripled in the choruses. It’s intended to be at once assertive, yet sensitive, but the overall effect is like a 6 ft Racoon on steroids with a sore throat - neither scary nor funny.
The situation in the UK ?
Is a little more complex. 90% of UK rock bands sound like Coldplay, except Coldplay themselves, who have decided to sound like U2. The artsy minority tend to skate between early Who, MC5 and the Velvet Underground, with a production vibe that reliably oscillates between London's two golden eras - the swinging sixties and the synthy/indie early 80s (albeit with far greater recording technology and way less talent).
And they’re not “influential” in the manner of a Lou Reed or a Pink Floyd, either. In fact, you’ll hardly remember them 10 years after their peak. They won’t make classic radio play lists either. Rather, they neatly set the water mark for a particular sub-genre at a particular time- analogous to, say, the median 4 bedroom house price in Malibu, or a certain share-market index.
You can pick up one of their records and find yourself thinking : “Ah, yes, that’s what 1997 sounded like – when I was thirty five.. it was a very good year”.
Now these acts needn’t have created the sound by which they are identified - that’s not the point. What they (and their producers) do is "reverse engineer" a particular song writing and production approach which , once successful, gets flogged to death by the major labels - much the same way that American TV networks squeeze the life out of a good TV show until we wish that it had never been born. All bands have their influences, of course, but these acts seem to have sacrificed all artistic discretion to "stick with the program" - slavishly chiselling their albums from the prevailing (commercially successful) sonic reference points, in a way that almost "codifies" them for that particular sub genre.
Put shortly – these bands are as annoying as fuck.
1. Pearl Jam
A stool wrapped in a plaid shirt. For way too much of the 1990s Pearl Jam were a staple of male menopause FM radio around the world. Awful, awful stuff. The interesting thing about Pearl Jam is that those acts accused of imitating them were consistently shit loads better. Exhibit A for the prosecution: Stone Temple Pilots.
2. Live
The scourge of the new century. Yet another clown with a shaved head and butt-clenchingly earnest "EMO" vocals poured over bechamel thick overdriven guitars. A bombastic drummer who just can’t keep those high hats closed - except for the mandatory “quite bit”. There’s a superficial presentment of something passionate and powerful going on- but in substance its all about as meaty as a Wagyu beef smoothie.
Production wise, this is corporate rock at its most inane - comprehensively neutered for the benefit of nervous A&R men and the band's suburban fanbase. Live's songs are often described as “anthemic”.
Hitler did a nice line in that, too.
3. Nickelback
All of the above, with extra maple syrup please! No one does corporate rock like the Canadians, but these guys seem to be omnipresent at the moment. Lyrics are so exceedingly obvious that he simply must be taking the piss.
The Nickleback sound represents, I think, the most strident rock template in the market at this time – five string bass with guitars pushing out a glossy take on late California “nu metal” power chords. So as not to disorientate the listener, the lead vocal is always treated with the same effect chain and doubled in the verses, tripled in the choruses. It’s intended to be at once assertive, yet sensitive, but the overall effect is like a 6 ft Racoon on steroids with a sore throat - neither scary nor funny.
The situation in the UK ?
Is a little more complex. 90% of UK rock bands sound like Coldplay, except Coldplay themselves, who have decided to sound like U2. The artsy minority tend to skate between early Who, MC5 and the Velvet Underground, with a production vibe that reliably oscillates between London's two golden eras - the swinging sixties and the synthy/indie early 80s (albeit with far greater recording technology and way less talent).
posted by What Are Ya? at 4:15 PM
0 comments
