Does anyone agree that if the Chems werent continually being classed as Electronica,Techno,House,etc etc,that their listenership would increase?What I mean is that if people who wouldnt give that kind of labelled music a listen were exposed to the likes of Surface To Air,Das Spiegel,One Too Many Mornings,etc I'm pretty sure they would like it.Thats why I've always felt that the pigeon holing of the Chems into being a TYPE of music does them a total disservice.Anyone?
Forum
The Chems For Non Ravers?
#1 BUFFETT
Posted 20 June 2007 - 9:32 PM
#2 Benjani
Posted 20 June 2007 - 9:51 PM
Good point. Yeh i agree BUFFETT to the extent that i tell loads of my mates (17-18 yrs)that i think the chemical brothers are the most brilliant, creative musicians, but my mates are only aware of hey boy hey girl and galvanize. They don't know of hoops, hold tight london, asleep from day, surrender, dream on, marvo ging. But believe me, the chemicals are widely listened to, otherwise they wouldn't be aiming for a 5th successive No1 album!
#5 whirly
Posted 20 June 2007 - 10:28 PM
I agree, it's not fair to put the Chems in a box like that. I think they've proven a long time ago that their music moves beyond the confines of genres.
On the same token, genres do have their place. It allows people to contextualize things, to organize. When trying to describe something, saying it's "electronic" or "folk" or "dixie land jazz" etc. etc. can be helpful. It just gives people something to relate to.
But yeah, people pay too much attention to labels and genres - people have these set ideas of what something sounds like or have preconceived notions of what something is supposed to sound like - rather than just trying to listen to something and accept the music for what it is.
#7
Posted 20 June 2007 - 10:56 PM
Emotronic.
I mean , what the fuck is EMOTRONIC.
That is NOT very meatball sandwich.
More like smelly rotten egg on a moldy sandwich.
Anyhow , i never like to put a tag to music - this is hiphopdancetronic blabla - , for me its easy;
Mindblowing Music
Good Music
Bad Music.
#9
Posted 20 June 2007 - 11:09 PM
I went into a cd store today and asked if they had any chemical brothers (because I couldn't find it in the electronic section) and the guy said it was under rap/R&B, then he said it was fucked because they can't put the cds in the correct sections. Daft Punk was under rock too. I like how Best Buy has a miscilaneous section, it fits good.
#10 BUFFETT
Posted 20 June 2007 - 11:14 PM
Yeah I know the Chems are hugely popular as it is,I suppose what I meant is that a lot of people are missing out on how great they are because they think of a particular type of music when they see them labelled techo,rave or whatever and decide not to give them a listen at all on account of that.I'd hazard a guess that if Surface To Air had have been released by someone like Jean Michel Jarre it would have been HUGE across the whole music scene and not just with the likes of ourselves.
#11 whirly
Posted 20 June 2007 - 11:16 PM
Yeah, music stores (especially ones that lack any kind of organization, or even smaller stores where there's no real need to have different sections) will oftentimes sort music into places where it kind of makes you go "hmmmmm".
Categorizing, when you go to buy something - that is when it makes sense to put things in its place. It doesn't make sense to put Madonna in the gospel section, or Beethoven in dixieland jazz. It's like when you go to the grocery store. There's food there, but it's got to go in its place so it's easy to find.
When I worked at Tower Records, Kraftwerk was in the Rock/Pop/Soul section. It doesn't make sense, but back before there was an "electronic music" section there really was no other place to put it. So keeping it in that section sort of stuck. It was kind of annoying.
#12 whirly
Posted 21 June 2007 - 3:38 AM
makeskidskill wrote:
I don't think they're pigeonholed like that in the U.K., which probably explains why they're so much bigger over there.
Americans, in general, have terrible taste in music.
Speaking of which. I was just on itunes UK and the reviews for Do It Again are far more positive than the reviews on itunes US...
#14
Posted 21 June 2007 - 6:13 AM
HMV here have there own dance section to the store. Most of the chem's CD's are in there but they also have a pop/rock section which includes chem's CD's as well.... otherwise most CD stores have CB albums under dance which is a tiny part to the huge pop/rock section most places have. I think large CD stores have to place things under classifications otherwise it would piss you off having to look through a huge "C" section.
#15 whirly
Posted 21 June 2007 - 6:36 AM
Yeah kwiddle, I agree with large stores having to classify albums/records. The store I worked in was one of the largest in my region. The one thing that did bother me though is when the genres kept getting narrowed down to the point where everything started to get not only pigeonholed, but downright pinholed in these subgenres. It just got stupid.
As for exposure, or the Chemical Brothers reaching a wider audience - the music speaks for itself. Classifying it in the electronic section does make sense, but if you play it and let people hear it, they might be surprised at what they're hearing (and liking). It happens every day... I think it's important for stores to play the music out. And most of them do - except the company (like the one I worked in) became highly corporate and individual stores lost their autonomy and were told employees couldn't put on music they wanted - the stores were instructed to play only new releases, then the next couple weeks cycle out for the next wave of new releases. And my boss was great, but he followed things to the book. It's kind of hard to get the music out, or to even introduce something you think is cool when you're being told what you have to play and listen to. That's part of the problem with the radio in the US.
#16
Posted 21 June 2007 - 7:34 AM
Listen, I'm born and bred in the U.S. and the Chems are my favorite. So, it ain't all Americans --
makeskids, i don't think you understand the unbelieveable machine in the record industry that exists in the U.S. -- the problem is that, combined with the way most americans act like sheep when music is put on a platter for them. "oh, this is what i should like? uh, ok..." ... It's a problem, but it's not all of us.
- @KngtRdr / @9GRecords / Got Glint?
#18
Posted 21 June 2007 - 3:47 PM
I agree American taste in music is horrible. Then again, show me two people who have the same exact taste in music. I may LOVE the chemical brothers, but i also LOVE particle, infected mushroom, pnuma trio, phish, lemon jelly, juno reactor, and fila brazillia. i am an american as well.
American made music is pre-fab, like most americans. I can produce a rap track, in less than 5 hours, and make it a number one. But im not in it for the money, like most of the homies. Music to me is a meditative, lovable process and act. Takes me to higher grounds. And EVERYBODY has their own jams that take them to another level. My level is just different than average american level.
Then again, America did start through religious persecution, and then persecute natives religiously...once a hippicrit(sp), always a hippicrit(sp).
America everything, is a walking, talking, breathing machine. The machines are already trying to take over the world, but they aint your average pre-programmed robots.
#19 BUFFETT
Posted 21 June 2007 - 4:10 PM
One thing people havent mentioned in the whole "US music fans havent got a clue about good music" or at the very least are easily influenced into liking something,is this.Not in a million years would songs like StarTrekking Across The Universe,Mr Blobby,Ah Shuttupa Face,or Grandad We Love You etc, EVER make No.1 in the States.The UK on the other hand..........!
#20 makeskidskill
Posted 21 June 2007 - 4:17 PM
I know it's not EVERYONE, obviously I have good taste in music and I live here, I was speaking in general.
But somehow I've managed to track down good tunes in the flood of miscellaneous crap that's out there, other people could to, if they could be bothered.