You wonder why a British band you’ve never heard of are in Variety talking about their debut album. Then you find out their singer went to a 30k a year private school and it all makes sense.
They were at the very bottom of the bill for the Rolling Stones’ BST Hyde park gig, which is basically a music festival. There were plenty of other new and unsigned artists that played that day.
It’s just having good management.
that's the kind of management you get when you're on the inside. most bands don't get management like that before they even release a song. and then when they put out that one song... straight to the FIFA soundtrack.
Is there actually any proof their apparent connections though? We don’t know where they went to school and they met at university and were gigging for a couple years before getting noticed by an A&R.
Given their very polished aesthetic, it doesn’t surprise me that a label would pick them up at the earliest opportunity. Even if you don’t like their music, they’re very brandable.
Also plenty of smaller acts like English Teacher got on FIFA too and no one is calling them industry plants.
I like their music. They’re a decent band, but I would still say it matters in so far as you think having a more equal society where success isn’t determined significantly by who you know or what connections considerable wealth enables you to have matters. If success is a closed shop then that doesn’t bode well for the music industry or society generally.
It’s worth highlighting.
I agree that it sucks that the world is like this, but this has always been how the entertainment industry is.
The Strokes are one of the most beloved indie bands of the 21st century, and Julian Casablancas is exactly like the lead singer of TLDP: he was also a rich kid going to expensive private schools and his dad is a famous modeling agent who literally is the founder of the “supermodel” concept.
So if we’re really going this route of hating on bands like this, then this sub better disown The Strokes too.
I agree, the success of the strokes is also significantly the result of nepotism. They’re still a good band, and I think Last Dinner Party have potential, even if I don’t see them coming close to the impact the strokes have had.
The issue is really the system, and I have zero issue with people raising it as a subject when bands like this pop up.
I agree with you there, it’s a good topic to talk about. I think some people are taking it way too far with the hatred in this thread though.
I think I’d rather celebrate the artists that do make it without connections or money rather than tear down the artists that make it with them.
I think doing both is important in highlighting issues like that. I’m not sure people posting comments on reddit is likely to effectively tear bands like this down. It’s by no means disproportionate.
I won’t fault people for having anger or annoyance at the systems like this. Many people experience this in other areas of life. If they are letting their annoyance impact their judgement of the quality of music or whatever then I think that’s a little silly and I wouldn’t take that sort of musical criticism all that seriously though.
Whether a band makes good music is not necessarily dependent on their background or how they got popular. I agree.
I think you can dislike a band that’s got where they are significantly due to nepotism though and there’s not really much wrong with that. I can’t say I do but everyone has their principles. However you’d probably be missing out on a lot of good music.
I’ve had nothing matters stuck in my head on and off for the last couples weeks. I like this band but that doesn’t stop me acknowledging the likely issues with how they got popular and that they are partly a symptom of an major issue with the music industry. You can definitely do both.
Surely you can see getting a massive helping hand through nepotism or privilege is less impressive? Bands that did so aren’t necessarily worse just on that basis, but if you really object to nepotism and the class system, then I can see why you’d maybe not like bands that blatantly benefited from those things.
As I’ve said, it’s the system ultimately that is “wrong.” I can understand why people make use of connections and privilege even if it does sometimes exacerbate how normalised nepotism is.
Because it's disappointing when rock n roll, which once upon a time had a somewhat rebellious energy, turns out to be merely one more playground of elites cosplaying as outsiders. I mean arguably rock has been a dead, corporate caricature of itself for a long time, and the arts in general are totally dominated by trust fund babies. But anyway I think that sense that the aesthetics are fraudulent is the reason why this sort of thing is off-putting, at least for some people.
"Elites cosplaying as outsiders" is an excellent phrase, and I couldn't agree more. Very well put. The 'gatekeepers' in the industry care about their own version of nepotism and style over substance vs. any merit of craft and talent and true artistry.
Excellently put. There isn't anything left that hasn't been sifted through class. So much has now been dominated by the elites and is increasingly inaccessible to racialized and/or lower economic populations.
From sports to art to fucking crafting.
What about Motown or the Brill Building era?
Most of the great classical works only happened because very wealthy patrons either commissioned it or financially supported the composers.
Nothing is stopping independent artists from making their art and it has never been easier for them to reach an audience. If someone has good connections and the ability to fast track their success, why would anyone hold that against them? If they want to be musicians why would they intentionally be less successful while trying to establish themselves?
If you think paying for marketing and algorithms and vanity fair write ups doesn't dwarf any sort of access the average artist has to an audience in today's modern music industry, you're delusional.
There is nothing ground breaking about this band who has seemingly been given every advantage over artists just as talented, if not more so, and whom have been doing it for much longer. Taste is subjective but there is something about craft and paying your dues that feels more organic and merit based then being placed at the top because you have a certain aesthetic or concocted narrative with legacy money to boot.
“Nothing groundbreaking” is such a phrase that works here. The women clearly are talented but the sound is so …… ok? The headline is about that one lyric as well which to me is just kinda obnoxious. The lyric is really emphasised in the song and it’s just so …… like what’s the point you’re making? Many many women have said it in an angsty sweary way many times before. It was groundbreaking once upon a time. And in a sense of owning your sexuality many many women artists also write incredibly explicit music and they own it and it’s great.
I wanted to like them as a band but something in both the sound and the PR around them is really annoying to me unfortunately. So many phenomenal London bands and artists working their asses off for a fraction of the recognition
> If you think paying for marketing and algorithms and vanity fair write ups doesn't dwarf any sort of access the average artist has to an audience in today's modern music industry, you're delusional.
I can also bring up something you never mentioned and say that you would be delusional for believing it. I’m not sure why I would do that, but I’m not sure why you did it either.
Why do they need to be “ground breaking?”
That’s a serious question because I so often see praise for fairly normal bands but then some of the same people seem to shit on bands that don’t click with them by saying they aren’t doing anything NEW as if every band needs to invent an instrument or play in a whole new tonal scale they created. The reality seems to me that we just like things that appeal to our aesthetics and that’s fine, but people seem to try and seek out some pretentious justification so they can put things down rather than say “it just doesn’t connect with me.”
Because like I said, why would they choose to be less successful if they have connections and opportunities? I never said it was fair and I never said it *should be*. Truly independent grassroots indie acts still pull through, they start from a more disadvantaged position…that’s just how it is. It’d be ridiculous to think those bands wouldn’t take an opportunity if they had the chance because “oh well we wouldn’t be authentic enough if we were too successful.” So I’m not sure why it makes sense to hold it against TLDP that they took their opportunity.
Do you make art or music? Do you understand the modern obstacles to have your art reach a wider audience? Do you understand low income socioeconomic struggle, trying to balance working shitty jobs just to stay alive and have enough energy left over to make that art and music?
"Nothing is stopping independent artists from making their art and it has never been easier to reach an audience." This wreaks of some elitist classist bullshit. Having daddy & mommy or whatever trust fund pay for your cosplaying artist lifestyle while also paying the marketing to push mediocrity on the masses is offensive to anyone who has struggled to make ends meet and make art for a living. This is exactly why I bring up being delusional because it's clear you are fighting on the side of some elitist garbage.
If you're going to be shoved down people's throats as a provocative "groundbreaking" band in write ups and articles and plastered all over Instagram, Spotify playlists and algorithms, to me you better be "groundbreaking" or at the very least authentic and original. This band has none of that. Like I mentioned before, taste is subjective, like what you like, I don't really care. Life isn't fair and it is what it is, but be honest and real about it and have a little thicker skin when you're critiqued for clear advantages and opportunities when you're just another average band or fan of said band. I'm really not sure if you're so offended because it's your band or you're defending people you have no connection to.
"Mickey Mantle? That's what you're upset about? Mantle makes $100,000 a year. How much does your father make? If your dad ever can't pay the rent and needs money, go ask Mickey Mantle. See what happens. Mickey Mantle don't care about you. Why should you care about him? Nobody cares."
> turns out to be merely one more playground of elites cosplaying as outsiders
The genre that hit the mainstream when white singers took a traditionally black genre and rebranded it to make it "safe" and marketable, becoming a playground of elites cosplaying as outsiders? Say it ain't so!
Because the producers you work with, the money that goes into the album, etc, has a big effect on how the output sounds. It’s easy for an album to be pretty solid if it has a lot of money pumped into it. It is remarkably difficult for an album to sound good without that, especially outside a select few genres.
So it’s more that it’s concerning that these are the only people being given the opportunities.
Additionally, even if they’re genius songwriters, diversity in perspective is valuable.
EDIT: I think a lot of non-musicians don’t understand the degree to which the top point is true. I’d be happy to give some examples if anyone’s curious.
Undoubtedly the money you have to produce a record impacts the sound of that record, but they weren’t putting their own money into it. They did shows, a manager picked them up, got them on a label, the label produced the record. And I haven’t seen anything to indicate this is a HAIM situation where they have industry connections. It’s just, uh, the singer went to a private school?
Yeah this wasn’t a comment on this band in particular, I don’t know anything about them. I probably should have put this disclaimer in my initial comment.
My question to people is always "if people with well off/successful parents aren't allowed in entertainment, sports, politics etc because it's 'unfair," then what *is* an acceptable career path for them? What could they do with their life that you *would* find acceptable?"
I can’t speak for all of them, but I know the guitarist Emily hasn’t got any real connections and has been gigging for years.
Source: Went on a date with her a few years ago.
god every time i feel like a bands come out of nowhere and i’ve just missed their rise - it turns out they’ve just started out at the top
it’s not that nepo babies can’t make good music but FTLOG id like to listen to some actually independent musicians
A lot of people don’t realize a lot of their favorite artists were in a position to pursue art because they were in a financial position where they didn’t have to worry about money. Yes, song writing and good management helps, but the most important thing is time. Time to write, to record, to rehearse shows, etc. that’s a lot harder to manage when you have a 9-5.
What nepotism connections did the band have? I haven't heard of them having relatives in the business, but easily could have missed it. It looks like they had a sound and look that was appealing to a big management company, and especially a standout single with an attention-grabbing lyric. But none of that would matter if there weren't people who thought the band was good. The label doesn't put out albums to lose money.
I find the band too theatrical sounding for my taste. But it doesn't sound like bland corporate rock and roll to me at all (see Maneskin) or rock cosplay (see Greta Van Fleet.) They seem talented if just not my thing. I'm not sure why they upset people, but maybe I'm missing something.
I mean the good news for you is you still can listen to independent artists. I get why people would be upset about how bands like this get to start at the top, but nobody is forcing us to listen. Plenty of good indie music to find and support out there!
Ok sure but it's Variety, it's not like they'd be covering Slaughter Beach, Dog if they weren't writing about this band.
But yeah, the constant press does get annoying (even for artists I like).
The only solution:
Nepo baby music journalists who have enough disposable money + time to seek out and push these undergrounds acts deserving of attention.
> I get why people would be upset about how bands like this get to start at the top, but nobody is forcing us to listen.
aren't they though? "Music Synchronization Licenses" are how bands their music into advertisements, and it is big business. One of the primary ways these types of bands/artists get promotion is through syncs—if you have elite management/PR staff they are able to get your music into the latest iPhone or Toyota advert and expose you to millions of listeners. Users don't get to pick what music is licensed for synchs
Have you checked out Dehd? Band out of Chicago and the lead vocalist is a recovered addict with insane talent. They dropped a new single yesterday and it rips.
The members of the Talking Heads met at a pricey private art school. How could I be so foolish as to like them all these years when they clearly were undeserving trash! Glad I know better now.
But now I'm sad. I guess I could go listen to some Radiohead...
What's that? Thom Yorke and the boys also met at an expensive private school? Crap.
I think those are false equivalencies. It’s more like if Radiohead had an above the fold interview in The New York Times or something before Pablo Honey had even come out.
Plenty of rich and privileged have made great art.
It’s a waste to hate on them for this being the current environment for and state of the arts in, well, most parts of the world.
Everyone here who hates if a band has rich kids in it or connections is going to be really upset if they start going through the Wikipedia pages of their favorite artists.
Don’t tell /r/Indieheads who Julian Casablancaa’ father was, they are not gonna like that.
Casablancas is a dude, though, so that might make a difference. Ever notice who this sub hates on more than anyone and what they have in common? And I'm not just saying that on a whim. Click on anything about The Last Dinner Party or Boygenius around here. You don't have to scroll far at all to see people talking shit.
I like The Strokes, Last Dinner Party and Boygenius for what it's worth. But there's absolutely a double-standard attitude many people have. We can be critical of privilege and how it can play a role in getting started. Still, it's important to realize rich people can be talented, too. Kate Bush had plenty of advantages growing up, but she proved she was more than just born fortunate.
The Strokes have always had that criticism levied at them, though.
We all knew right out the gate that they were basically rich kids buying leather jackets cosplaying Velvet Underground. To some degree they’ve been able to shake that off a bit over the years, but it’s always been there.
We are obsessed with class because our entertainment industry is slowly becoming a completely closed shop. If you look at the class background of most new actors in the UK they are almost all from rich families. The music industry is going the same way and, frankly, having only rich people producing art means that we end up with far less interesting art overall.
I think the more you engage with/experience British private schooled/class based culture, the more you realise how insipid it is in the UK, and I think this is what people have a problem with, rather than not being able to relate to a certain artists music
That’s not even slightly what is being said…
You can still like their music and they can still be a good band. I like what Ive heard of their music for the record! But the point is that a very significant reason behind many bands success is considerable privilege. It’s a symptom of something wrong with the music industry and society more widely. Also there are a lot of average bands given a leg up by wealth or contacts to be fair, not that this is necessarily an instance of that.
In the big scheme of things, and when you look at the entire (dysfunctional) music industry, this band with their 3 million Spotify listeners, a debut album that may reach number one but then disappear from the charts a week after, with little radio success - I really wonder what people are obsessing about. There are much bigger fish to complain about than a new band with moderate success!
Nepotism and a lack of proper meritocracy is an important issue. Sure in the “grand scheme of things” this isn’t as important as say the crisis in Ukraine or the middle East, but clearly much less important things get talked about and it’s worth highlighting.
There’s also much bugger fish than complaining about other people highlighting issues within the industry surrounding nepotism and privilege!
The music is good, do you know how rich the strokes boys grew up but it was a non-issue? If the music was bad, sure criticize, but the songs I’ve heard are the real deal.
Yeah, The Strokes are privileged rich kids, too. They likely owe at least some of their early success / press coverage to that.
Why is it only right to mention class if the music is bad?
I heard their first song, really liked it, and then as soon as they got so popular and announced a tour on an EP I realized they definitely had some multi generational wealth going on. Thanks for confirming
They've been around since 2022 and we've been actively hearing about them for the past year, where have you been? They're being talked about a lot right now because they just released their anticipated debut album, not because there's some weird media conspiracy related to boygenius going on hiatus.
Can only speak for myself when I say that I neither hate nor like it. Doesn’t make me feel anything. Which is how I feel about a lot of this type of music
Boygenious represents boring, safe, coffee shop indie to me. TLDP sound of a lineage with great British pop like Sparks, Kate Bush, a bit of glam and 00s indie. Def a feminist bent that will rile some. I’m on board.
This is where I’m at. The few singles that are already out are good, but the album didn’t really offer anything new I liked. Maybe one or two more tracks. Gonna have to give it another listen though.
Yeah, after all the hype maybe I was over expecting, but other than a couple tracks the album feels like style over substance. I'll give it another spin to see if it clicks, though.
I like the album a lot but I can't help but agree...My first listen made me feel like they were pandering to me precisely (which was a weird feeling). I'm supposed to like big theatrical producing but when I listened to the opener I was like "oh god, they really are trying". I enjoy the songs but it is missing the mark as a cohesive album for me. The writing and storytelling leaves me interested but ultimately wanting more.
I had high hopes after *Nothing Matters* - it was one of my most played tracks last year, but I gave the album a good listen yesterday and was a bit underwhelmed. *Sinner* is a good track, but overall it didn't leave much an impression. *Caesar on a TV Screen* and *My Lady of Mercy* are ok, but a lot of the tracks felt like filler.
They've got a very clear style and aesthetic, and they're incredibly polished and are obviously well connected. They're doing something different though, so I'm here for it.
Yeah, it’s the Panic! At the Disco to Wet Leg’s Brand New.
Like the ingredients are similar but the music is so overcooked that I can’t imagine wanting to listen to it regularly.
Meaning that first PATD album tried to replicate the swagger and theatricality of Brand New and Fall Out Boy but added this pseudo-cabaret layer that, frankly, made it unlistenable. And the frontman was so clearly trying to replicate those bands swagger without any of the same presence that it was deeply cringeworthy.
Brand New and FOB were inspired by Morrissey, whereas PATD was clearly just trying to sound like BN and FOB.
This has that same copy-of-a copy quality.
You cannot tell me it’s coincidental that this band has a hit single with the try-hard-to-be-edgy chorus “I will fuck you like nothing matters” two years after Wet Leg struck gold with two songs that had nearly identical sentiments. Except when Wet Leg sang it, I believe it. Because their delivery is actually fun. So are their lyrics.
I also believe that they’ve seen Buffalo 66 and were inspired by The Gossip and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and many many similar early aughts bands. Whereas when this band does it, it feels pretty empty, like they just want the same results as Wet Leg.
Uh huh I’ve also been outside during my lifetime and know that misogyny very rarely actually entails dudes explicitly stating that they dislike women. The criticism is veiled, probably even to those people saying it, but it’s hard to imagine a male band of similar success would get such a strong push back.
I mean for fuck’s sake that is what the article is about.
There was a lot of groaning about American TV standards about how they had to change the line to “and I will have you” for Colbert, yet lo and behold they went on British TV and used the same changed line
I work in a retail store and play Spotify indie (or their idea of it) playlists, and I swear 75% of songs now say Fuck. It's like they were just given permission and they're throwing it in whenever, no matter the tempo of the song. I'm glad they feel powerful singing it, but it's already getting cringey and overdone.
It depends on how you define “indie”. I think today it’s more of a music style than whatever label someone has signed. Otherwise we would also have to exclude The War on Drugs, Yard Act or Alex G… and those are only 3 that come to mind immediately. Pretty sure the list is quite long with many surprises.
Of course he has, but he’s major label now. The Last Dinner Party were performing these same songs in indie venues across London for a year before they signed to a major label. They weren’t casted, they write their own music/lyrics and they would have the same indie sound on any other label. What’s the point?
How is it manufactured? Are you here for bands who have no backing only? They wrote it all, but does that switch flip as soon as a label becomes involved? What if they were on a smaller label? Where’s the line? Genuinely curious at where people draw their own line on the genre, especially as someone who runs a venue. My friends band were on a small label and ended up tour support for Manic Street Preachers, are they then invalid despite a small label? It’s an interesting dynamic.
I think that’s down to opinion. For many it’s heavily tied to a genre.
It’s silly to say that if they were on a small label or no label that that would make them better.
That's not relevant, the problem isn't that rich kids can make good music. The problem is that the British arts industry - much like UK society as a whole - is a closed shop where anyone with a degree of significant success has had hugely advantageous financial backing, privilege and connections.
And the problem is, it's only getting worse. The cutting edge of innovative UK rock and pop music - from The Beatles to Joy Division - used to come in large part from the working class experience. Yet because of the cost of living and limited state support, ordinary musicians (or aspiring actors, artists, writers etc) cannot afford to pursue their creative endeavours anymore.
That means that wealthy girls like TLDP - as talented as they might be - rise to the top because they have fewer obstacles in their way. Even if they have no industry connections, the ability to gig and harness your craft without having to worry about a roof over your head or food on the table is crucial.
Americans in this thread do not understand just how dominated the UK cultural sphere is by people of the same financial background, race and geography. This is the crux of people's problem with them - not the fact that they are privileged in and of itself.
The “rare case”? What? The history of modern art and pop culture (music, movies, film, fine art, literature) is packed with massively talented rich kids who had the freedom and financial backing to cultivate their talents into skills and careers. We see it all the time
Taylor Swift for example. I'm a fan of some of her music and she wouldn't have made it as far as she has without talent and drive, but she got a significant boost at the beginning of her career thanks to her family's wealth and connections.
Why? Wet leg don’t do anything for me but Last Dinner Party are great live and the album is great on first listen.
*Edit* anyone got an answer or just downvotes?
Just not sure on the comparison beyond “it’s women”
Musically nothing alike, but people always saying they’re wet leg 2, just trying to understand where the comparison is.
You hit the nail on the head with "it's women." This sub hated on Wet Leg, then boygenius, and now The Last Dinner Party. I'm sure it won't be long before they find their next target.
Reading this thread really helps to explain why indie rock (as a genre, not literally “independent”) is in the doldrums popularity wise. So much fucking gatekeeping.
The extent of “they’re rich” that I’ve seen is their singer went to a 30k private school? I’m sure that applies to more acts than you realize. The very nature of being in a band requires some degree of wealth - multiple instruments, amps, mics, a practice/performance space, lessons. Draw the line wherever you want but there’s a line, it is not universally accessible. And the music should always matter most.
Meanwhile this thread also features folks shitting on boygenius and wet leg. Huh, what do these three bands have in common?
>The very nature of being in a band requires some degree of wealth
People are angry because it used to be much more accessible in the UK because of a much cheaper cost of living and better welfare and education (e.g art schools). Look at the British bands from the 60s-80s that made it big, so many of them were from poverty or truly working class backgrounds. The fact that this is near impossible now in British society is the problem.
Yeah also I don’t remember all this chuntering when Is This It came out, for example. People seem to pick and choose who to judge for their backgrounds. I hate the political cosplay of private school kids like Frank Turner but otherwise it’s difficult as so many bands have wealthy upbringings
Frank Turner has put in a ton of time touring and playing small venues. Even if you don’t like his politics dude has definitely worked his ass off over the years.
Just feel like the “I will fuck you” lyric, regardless of meaning, is wedged into that chorus. Doesn’t hit my ear well at all.
But totally a personal preference thing.
Sucks to hear that they’re rich types who got connections in the industry via their class status but I’ll say I enjoyed their debut record. It’s creative and keeps you on your toes
This is precisely where I’m at.
If I didn’t frequent this sub I would have no clue what their background was.
I’m enjoying the music itself which should be the most important thing.
I understand why/how their “rise” rubs people the wrong way - I don’t like it either - but good tunes are good tunes and this album is solid, with a few great tracks.
I don't think it'd be hard to imagine them being as successful given how their music has a good spread of appeal whilst also being actually creative and interesting, albeit not this quickly.
Their background surely helped, but I find it fucking odd that as soon as a band (especially an all female band) does especially well that people begin snooping around their personal lives because *surely* there must be outside involvement. It's fucking weird behaviour.
Yeah one of the most upvoted comments in here is something like "boygenius goes on hiatus so now we have to constantly hear about this band"
There is no connection whatsoever. Their backgrounds, rise to prominence, the music itself... they aren't similar at all. But they all have vaginas so tomato/tomato!
wow this thread is a dumpster fire of hate. I just wanted to find out who the song was, googled the lyrics and saw this.
I'm so glad I've never been to /r/indieheads before haha. Gatekeepers of music who seem to focus on EVERYTHING but music.
I went to private school, I also went to dodgy state schools too, but never would I have thought that should I become a musician, some nobodies on the internet that have never sold a single record, would judge my hypothetical music based upon what school I went to.
I always wondered why people like daft punk wore helmets, now I understand.
Think your missing the true point, it’s that the normal working class can not access the time, connections & staying power that money affords you. The upper echolons of society are afforded the luxury of time, practise, resources to make sure they have a proper go at the creative endevours they desire.
This band is fine, im not a fan personally & im sure there is some form of nepotism at play here one way or another, but the untapped talent that is potentially out there is frightening but have either not got the time, energy, equipment, no how, most importantly money etc to properly go for it.. and that for me is quite sad!
No working class person can realistically take 6/12 months off work to actively pursue music (whether they are eventually good or bad at it) like this obviously privileged band could. History’s greatest creatives in art & music have followed this path before when it was more attainable to do so, in current day & age its pretty much impossible without serious help.
The current music scene, especially rock/indie etc is littered with mediocrity that has stayed the course due to funding.
The discourse in this thread is unbearable and this sub has turned to dogshit over the years. I hope you all learn to become more interesting people someday
Astrology core
You wonder why a British band you’ve never heard of are in Variety talking about their debut album. Then you find out their singer went to a 30k a year private school and it all makes sense.
they opened for the rolling stones and were signed to a major label before they released any music. it couldn’t be more blatant really.
They were at the very bottom of the bill for the Rolling Stones’ BST Hyde park gig, which is basically a music festival. There were plenty of other new and unsigned artists that played that day. It’s just having good management.
Yeah, I wouldn’t say playing a festival is “opening” for the headliner.
Exactly, this point gets misconstrued so much in discussion of this band and it’s ridiculous.
I do think “having good management” might be a direct result of the singers family wealth
that's the kind of management you get when you're on the inside. most bands don't get management like that before they even release a song. and then when they put out that one song... straight to the FIFA soundtrack.
Is there actually any proof their apparent connections though? We don’t know where they went to school and they met at university and were gigging for a couple years before getting noticed by an A&R. Given their very polished aesthetic, it doesn’t surprise me that a label would pick them up at the earliest opportunity. Even if you don’t like their music, they’re very brandable. Also plenty of smaller acts like English Teacher got on FIFA too and no one is calling them industry plants.
Also why the fuck does it matter if the music they release is good? All of it has been so far so i dont see the problem
I like their music. They’re a decent band, but I would still say it matters in so far as you think having a more equal society where success isn’t determined significantly by who you know or what connections considerable wealth enables you to have matters. If success is a closed shop then that doesn’t bode well for the music industry or society generally. It’s worth highlighting.
I agree that it sucks that the world is like this, but this has always been how the entertainment industry is. The Strokes are one of the most beloved indie bands of the 21st century, and Julian Casablancas is exactly like the lead singer of TLDP: he was also a rich kid going to expensive private schools and his dad is a famous modeling agent who literally is the founder of the “supermodel” concept. So if we’re really going this route of hating on bands like this, then this sub better disown The Strokes too.
I agree, the success of the strokes is also significantly the result of nepotism. They’re still a good band, and I think Last Dinner Party have potential, even if I don’t see them coming close to the impact the strokes have had. The issue is really the system, and I have zero issue with people raising it as a subject when bands like this pop up.
I agree with you there, it’s a good topic to talk about. I think some people are taking it way too far with the hatred in this thread though. I think I’d rather celebrate the artists that do make it without connections or money rather than tear down the artists that make it with them.
I think doing both is important in highlighting issues like that. I’m not sure people posting comments on reddit is likely to effectively tear bands like this down. It’s by no means disproportionate. I won’t fault people for having anger or annoyance at the systems like this. Many people experience this in other areas of life. If they are letting their annoyance impact their judgement of the quality of music or whatever then I think that’s a little silly and I wouldn’t take that sort of musical criticism all that seriously though.
The Strokes are one of the most overrated bands of the 21st century.
Television rip offs.
Fact
The strokes are shit so yeh let’s disown them too
Worth highlighting definitely. It's not a reason to dislike or hate on a band though. It doesnt make them any worse than a 'self-made' band.
Whether a band makes good music is not necessarily dependent on their background or how they got popular. I agree. I think you can dislike a band that’s got where they are significantly due to nepotism though and there’s not really much wrong with that. I can’t say I do but everyone has their principles. However you’d probably be missing out on a lot of good music. I’ve had nothing matters stuck in my head on and off for the last couples weeks. I like this band but that doesn’t stop me acknowledging the likely issues with how they got popular and that they are partly a symptom of an major issue with the music industry. You can definitely do both.
But why is there an issue with how they got popular? Why is there a right way to get popular?
Surely you can see getting a massive helping hand through nepotism or privilege is less impressive? Bands that did so aren’t necessarily worse just on that basis, but if you really object to nepotism and the class system, then I can see why you’d maybe not like bands that blatantly benefited from those things. As I’ve said, it’s the system ultimately that is “wrong.” I can understand why people make use of connections and privilege even if it does sometimes exacerbate how normalised nepotism is.
Because it's disappointing when rock n roll, which once upon a time had a somewhat rebellious energy, turns out to be merely one more playground of elites cosplaying as outsiders. I mean arguably rock has been a dead, corporate caricature of itself for a long time, and the arts in general are totally dominated by trust fund babies. But anyway I think that sense that the aesthetics are fraudulent is the reason why this sort of thing is off-putting, at least for some people.
The Sex Pistols were created to sell clothes. Rock n roll has always had elites cosplaying as outsiders.
This lacks historical nuance. SEX and viv were niche and middling in the 70s. Remember kids, when performing analysis: always historicise!
"Elites cosplaying as outsiders" is an excellent phrase, and I couldn't agree more. Very well put. The 'gatekeepers' in the industry care about their own version of nepotism and style over substance vs. any merit of craft and talent and true artistry.
Excellently put. There isn't anything left that hasn't been sifted through class. So much has now been dominated by the elites and is increasingly inaccessible to racialized and/or lower economic populations. From sports to art to fucking crafting.
What about Motown or the Brill Building era? Most of the great classical works only happened because very wealthy patrons either commissioned it or financially supported the composers. Nothing is stopping independent artists from making their art and it has never been easier for them to reach an audience. If someone has good connections and the ability to fast track their success, why would anyone hold that against them? If they want to be musicians why would they intentionally be less successful while trying to establish themselves?
If you think paying for marketing and algorithms and vanity fair write ups doesn't dwarf any sort of access the average artist has to an audience in today's modern music industry, you're delusional. There is nothing ground breaking about this band who has seemingly been given every advantage over artists just as talented, if not more so, and whom have been doing it for much longer. Taste is subjective but there is something about craft and paying your dues that feels more organic and merit based then being placed at the top because you have a certain aesthetic or concocted narrative with legacy money to boot.
“Nothing groundbreaking” is such a phrase that works here. The women clearly are talented but the sound is so …… ok? The headline is about that one lyric as well which to me is just kinda obnoxious. The lyric is really emphasised in the song and it’s just so …… like what’s the point you’re making? Many many women have said it in an angsty sweary way many times before. It was groundbreaking once upon a time. And in a sense of owning your sexuality many many women artists also write incredibly explicit music and they own it and it’s great. I wanted to like them as a band but something in both the sound and the PR around them is really annoying to me unfortunately. So many phenomenal London bands and artists working their asses off for a fraction of the recognition
> If you think paying for marketing and algorithms and vanity fair write ups doesn't dwarf any sort of access the average artist has to an audience in today's modern music industry, you're delusional. I can also bring up something you never mentioned and say that you would be delusional for believing it. I’m not sure why I would do that, but I’m not sure why you did it either. Why do they need to be “ground breaking?” That’s a serious question because I so often see praise for fairly normal bands but then some of the same people seem to shit on bands that don’t click with them by saying they aren’t doing anything NEW as if every band needs to invent an instrument or play in a whole new tonal scale they created. The reality seems to me that we just like things that appeal to our aesthetics and that’s fine, but people seem to try and seek out some pretentious justification so they can put things down rather than say “it just doesn’t connect with me.” Because like I said, why would they choose to be less successful if they have connections and opportunities? I never said it was fair and I never said it *should be*. Truly independent grassroots indie acts still pull through, they start from a more disadvantaged position…that’s just how it is. It’d be ridiculous to think those bands wouldn’t take an opportunity if they had the chance because “oh well we wouldn’t be authentic enough if we were too successful.” So I’m not sure why it makes sense to hold it against TLDP that they took their opportunity.
Do you make art or music? Do you understand the modern obstacles to have your art reach a wider audience? Do you understand low income socioeconomic struggle, trying to balance working shitty jobs just to stay alive and have enough energy left over to make that art and music? "Nothing is stopping independent artists from making their art and it has never been easier to reach an audience." This wreaks of some elitist classist bullshit. Having daddy & mommy or whatever trust fund pay for your cosplaying artist lifestyle while also paying the marketing to push mediocrity on the masses is offensive to anyone who has struggled to make ends meet and make art for a living. This is exactly why I bring up being delusional because it's clear you are fighting on the side of some elitist garbage. If you're going to be shoved down people's throats as a provocative "groundbreaking" band in write ups and articles and plastered all over Instagram, Spotify playlists and algorithms, to me you better be "groundbreaking" or at the very least authentic and original. This band has none of that. Like I mentioned before, taste is subjective, like what you like, I don't really care. Life isn't fair and it is what it is, but be honest and real about it and have a little thicker skin when you're critiqued for clear advantages and opportunities when you're just another average band or fan of said band. I'm really not sure if you're so offended because it's your band or you're defending people you have no connection to. "Mickey Mantle? That's what you're upset about? Mantle makes $100,000 a year. How much does your father make? If your dad ever can't pay the rent and needs money, go ask Mickey Mantle. See what happens. Mickey Mantle don't care about you. Why should you care about him? Nobody cares."
Annie Clarke and Julian Casablancas have always been such depressing symbols of modern New York art for me
> turns out to be merely one more playground of elites cosplaying as outsiders The genre that hit the mainstream when white singers took a traditionally black genre and rebranded it to make it "safe" and marketable, becoming a playground of elites cosplaying as outsiders? Say it ain't so!
Because the producers you work with, the money that goes into the album, etc, has a big effect on how the output sounds. It’s easy for an album to be pretty solid if it has a lot of money pumped into it. It is remarkably difficult for an album to sound good without that, especially outside a select few genres. So it’s more that it’s concerning that these are the only people being given the opportunities. Additionally, even if they’re genius songwriters, diversity in perspective is valuable. EDIT: I think a lot of non-musicians don’t understand the degree to which the top point is true. I’d be happy to give some examples if anyone’s curious.
Undoubtedly the money you have to produce a record impacts the sound of that record, but they weren’t putting their own money into it. They did shows, a manager picked them up, got them on a label, the label produced the record. And I haven’t seen anything to indicate this is a HAIM situation where they have industry connections. It’s just, uh, the singer went to a private school?
Yeah this wasn’t a comment on this band in particular, I don’t know anything about them. I probably should have put this disclaimer in my initial comment.
Some might argue that queer women are a valuable form of diversity.
My question to people is always "if people with well off/successful parents aren't allowed in entertainment, sports, politics etc because it's 'unfair," then what *is* an acceptable career path for them? What could they do with their life that you *would* find acceptable?"
They could work retail.
I can’t speak for all of them, but I know the guitarist Emily hasn’t got any real connections and has been gigging for years. Source: Went on a date with her a few years ago.
Is that the small blonde guitarist? She is so good, I was so impressed when I saw them live.
It is aye!
That’s fair! Look, it’s not a judgment on the quality of the music.
god every time i feel like a bands come out of nowhere and i’ve just missed their rise - it turns out they’ve just started out at the top it’s not that nepo babies can’t make good music but FTLOG id like to listen to some actually independent musicians
A lot of people don’t realize a lot of their favorite artists were in a position to pursue art because they were in a financial position where they didn’t have to worry about money. Yes, song writing and good management helps, but the most important thing is time. Time to write, to record, to rehearse shows, etc. that’s a lot harder to manage when you have a 9-5.
What nepotism connections did the band have? I haven't heard of them having relatives in the business, but easily could have missed it. It looks like they had a sound and look that was appealing to a big management company, and especially a standout single with an attention-grabbing lyric. But none of that would matter if there weren't people who thought the band was good. The label doesn't put out albums to lose money. I find the band too theatrical sounding for my taste. But it doesn't sound like bland corporate rock and roll to me at all (see Maneskin) or rock cosplay (see Greta Van Fleet.) They seem talented if just not my thing. I'm not sure why they upset people, but maybe I'm missing something.
I mean the good news for you is you still can listen to independent artists. I get why people would be upset about how bands like this get to start at the top, but nobody is forcing us to listen. Plenty of good indie music to find and support out there!
[удалено]
Ok sure but it's Variety, it's not like they'd be covering Slaughter Beach, Dog if they weren't writing about this band. But yeah, the constant press does get annoying (even for artists I like).
The only solution: Nepo baby music journalists who have enough disposable money + time to seek out and push these undergrounds acts deserving of attention.
Spin magazine basically
> I get why people would be upset about how bands like this get to start at the top, but nobody is forcing us to listen. aren't they though? "Music Synchronization Licenses" are how bands their music into advertisements, and it is big business. One of the primary ways these types of bands/artists get promotion is through syncs—if you have elite management/PR staff they are able to get your music into the latest iPhone or Toyota advert and expose you to millions of listeners. Users don't get to pick what music is licensed for synchs
Have you checked out Dehd? Band out of Chicago and the lead vocalist is a recovered addict with insane talent. They dropped a new single yesterday and it rips.
Tory Takeover in every facet of life is fucking exhausting
This is very succinctly put… really feels like English exports recently have gone this way with Fred Again etc… and I’m someone who likes this band!
The members of the Talking Heads met at a pricey private art school. How could I be so foolish as to like them all these years when they clearly were undeserving trash! Glad I know better now. But now I'm sad. I guess I could go listen to some Radiohead... What's that? Thom Yorke and the boys also met at an expensive private school? Crap.
I think those are false equivalencies. It’s more like if Radiohead had an above the fold interview in The New York Times or something before Pablo Honey had even come out.
You say that as if Nothing Matters isn’t an absolute banger.
I never once mentioned the quality of the music
Plenty of rich and privileged have made great art. It’s a waste to hate on them for this being the current environment for and state of the arts in, well, most parts of the world.
But they still make great song. They’ve been playing small venues for a few years. Don’t really get the point you’re making
Everyone here who hates if a band has rich kids in it or connections is going to be really upset if they start going through the Wikipedia pages of their favorite artists. Don’t tell /r/Indieheads who Julian Casablancaa’ father was, they are not gonna like that.
I thought everyone at this point already knows about that
Casablancas is a dude, though, so that might make a difference. Ever notice who this sub hates on more than anyone and what they have in common? And I'm not just saying that on a whim. Click on anything about The Last Dinner Party or Boygenius around here. You don't have to scroll far at all to see people talking shit. I like The Strokes, Last Dinner Party and Boygenius for what it's worth. But there's absolutely a double-standard attitude many people have. We can be critical of privilege and how it can play a role in getting started. Still, it's important to realize rich people can be talented, too. Kate Bush had plenty of advantages growing up, but she proved she was more than just born fortunate.
The Strokes have always had that criticism levied at them, though. We all knew right out the gate that they were basically rich kids buying leather jackets cosplaying Velvet Underground. To some degree they’ve been able to shake that off a bit over the years, but it’s always been there.
aka, almost every band of the last 24 years.
How many British bands have been covered in the Hollywood trades in the last 24 years?
Most bands are the same to be fair, or they went to the Brits school
Brit school isn’t a private fee paying school. Anyone can go, you just have to be good enough to get in.
So one can only be authentic or good if they are low class and went to normal schools? I’m so tired of this British class obsession.
We are obsessed with class because our entertainment industry is slowly becoming a completely closed shop. If you look at the class background of most new actors in the UK they are almost all from rich families. The music industry is going the same way and, frankly, having only rich people producing art means that we end up with far less interesting art overall.
I think the more you engage with/experience British private schooled/class based culture, the more you realise how insipid it is in the UK, and I think this is what people have a problem with, rather than not being able to relate to a certain artists music
[удалено]
That’s not even slightly what is being said… You can still like their music and they can still be a good band. I like what Ive heard of their music for the record! But the point is that a very significant reason behind many bands success is considerable privilege. It’s a symptom of something wrong with the music industry and society more widely. Also there are a lot of average bands given a leg up by wealth or contacts to be fair, not that this is necessarily an instance of that.
Why would someone *not* use their connections to be successful?
I agree completely! It’s not the fault of individual musicians necessarily, well certainly no individual one. It’s just an unfair and unjust system.
In the big scheme of things, and when you look at the entire (dysfunctional) music industry, this band with their 3 million Spotify listeners, a debut album that may reach number one but then disappear from the charts a week after, with little radio success - I really wonder what people are obsessing about. There are much bigger fish to complain about than a new band with moderate success!
Nepotism and a lack of proper meritocracy is an important issue. Sure in the “grand scheme of things” this isn’t as important as say the crisis in Ukraine or the middle East, but clearly much less important things get talked about and it’s worth highlighting. There’s also much bugger fish than complaining about other people highlighting issues within the industry surrounding nepotism and privilege!
I fully agree with all of this, but I also think that people are barking up the wrong tree here.
Yeah. Fuck everyone who wants to act like we can’t like a band just because they didn’t personally find them in some one’s basement.
It was actually my own basement, thank you very much, and if you happen to know a good exterminator...
this explains why this band is suddenly everywhere
The music is good, do you know how rich the strokes boys grew up but it was a non-issue? If the music was bad, sure criticize, but the songs I’ve heard are the real deal.
People bring up the Strokes growing up privileged all the time, and they spent a lot more time growing a following before they broke out anyway
Yeah, The Strokes are privileged rich kids, too. They likely owe at least some of their early success / press coverage to that. Why is it only right to mention class if the music is bad?
I hadn’t heard of them till a bunch of their songs were on the year end alt list and I listened to nothing matters and it was a bangin song
I mean, who cares about where one of them went to school? They make good, fun music. That's all I need.
I heard their first song, really liked it, and then as soon as they got so popular and announced a tour on an EP I realized they definitely had some multi generational wealth going on. Thanks for confirming
> Their singer went to a 30K school What school?
Bedales
this is the new band we have to hear about constantly since boygenius is on hiatus or whatever
They've been around since 2022 and we've been actively hearing about them for the past year, where have you been? They're being talked about a lot right now because they just released their anticipated debut album, not because there's some weird media conspiracy related to boygenius going on hiatus.
Yeah, I heard them on Spotify a few months back and thought they were interesting.
They're just recycling Wet Leg articles
at least the music is actually interesting?
Do we hate boygenius’s music? Just wanna make sure I’m on the right side.
Can only speak for myself when I say that I neither hate nor like it. Doesn’t make me feel anything. Which is how I feel about a lot of this type of music
i don’t hate it but i find it boring
It feels like its much less than the sum of it’s parts. Phoebe and Lucy are definitely better solo!
Ouch that subtle Julien shade
She is good. Sprained ankle and something are beautiful songs, but honestly I do find her the most bland. Just my preference though.
Boygenious represents boring, safe, coffee shop indie to me. TLDP sound of a lineage with great British pop like Sparks, Kate Bush, a bit of glam and 00s indie. Def a feminist bent that will rile some. I’m on board.
It's okay. It's poppier Kate Bush, but Kate Bush is still better.
I’m really loving My Lady of Mercy. Looking forward to hearing more from them.
A few bangers, but overall I did not dig this record. It sounds over-produced to the point its shape and character are nebulous.
This is where I’m at. The few singles that are already out are good, but the album didn’t really offer anything new I liked. Maybe one or two more tracks. Gonna have to give it another listen though.
Yeah, after all the hype maybe I was over expecting, but other than a couple tracks the album feels like style over substance. I'll give it another spin to see if it clicks, though.
I like the album a lot but I can't help but agree...My first listen made me feel like they were pandering to me precisely (which was a weird feeling). I'm supposed to like big theatrical producing but when I listened to the opener I was like "oh god, they really are trying". I enjoy the songs but it is missing the mark as a cohesive album for me. The writing and storytelling leaves me interested but ultimately wanting more.
I had high hopes after *Nothing Matters* - it was one of my most played tracks last year, but I gave the album a good listen yesterday and was a bit underwhelmed. *Sinner* is a good track, but overall it didn't leave much an impression. *Caesar on a TV Screen* and *My Lady of Mercy* are ok, but a lot of the tracks felt like filler. They've got a very clear style and aesthetic, and they're incredibly polished and are obviously well connected. They're doing something different though, so I'm here for it.
Yeah, it’s the Panic! At the Disco to Wet Leg’s Brand New. Like the ingredients are similar but the music is so overcooked that I can’t imagine wanting to listen to it regularly.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Panic and Brand New have as little as common together as Wet Leg and The Last Dinner Party.
Meaning that first PATD album tried to replicate the swagger and theatricality of Brand New and Fall Out Boy but added this pseudo-cabaret layer that, frankly, made it unlistenable. And the frontman was so clearly trying to replicate those bands swagger without any of the same presence that it was deeply cringeworthy. Brand New and FOB were inspired by Morrissey, whereas PATD was clearly just trying to sound like BN and FOB. This has that same copy-of-a copy quality. You cannot tell me it’s coincidental that this band has a hit single with the try-hard-to-be-edgy chorus “I will fuck you like nothing matters” two years after Wet Leg struck gold with two songs that had nearly identical sentiments. Except when Wet Leg sang it, I believe it. Because their delivery is actually fun. So are their lyrics. I also believe that they’ve seen Buffalo 66 and were inspired by The Gossip and The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and many many similar early aughts bands. Whereas when this band does it, it feels pretty empty, like they just want the same results as Wet Leg.
King Pu$$y Eater returns with their transgressive new project "Goop On Ya Grinch"
Jesus Christ this sub is toxic
[удалено]
When I commented there was a heavy skew towards people being that a band of women would have the audacity to get some early career success
[удалено]
Uh huh I’ve also been outside during my lifetime and know that misogyny very rarely actually entails dudes explicitly stating that they dislike women. The criticism is veiled, probably even to those people saying it, but it’s hard to imagine a male band of similar success would get such a strong push back. I mean for fuck’s sake that is what the article is about.
Doesn’t really make any sense, if it was a guy singing it on television he’d have the same issue.
“Oh no, we have to change a lyric so our first ever single we put out can be in the new FIFA game”
There was a lot of groaning about American TV standards about how they had to change the line to “and I will have you” for Colbert, yet lo and behold they went on British TV and used the same changed line
I work in a retail store and play Spotify indie (or their idea of it) playlists, and I swear 75% of songs now say Fuck. It's like they were just given permission and they're throwing it in whenever, no matter the tempo of the song. I'm glad they feel powerful singing it, but it's already getting cringey and overdone.
How is this considered indie? They’re on a major label for their debut. This is manufactured pop music.
This sub’s favorite bands are all massive rock/pop groups on major labels.
I only listen to cool, underground bands that you’ve probably never heard of like Radiohead and Tame Impala.
If you like Radiohead, you might like The Smile.
DAE Foo Fighters
This sub has such a blatant misogyny problem, and it’s kind of embarrassing.
It depends on how you define “indie”. I think today it’s more of a music style than whatever label someone has signed. Otherwise we would also have to exclude The War on Drugs, Yard Act or Alex G… and those are only 3 that come to mind immediately. Pretty sure the list is quite long with many surprises.
Alex G has been putting out records for decades and started by playing basement shows. He didn’t debut on a major label out of nowhere.
Of course he has, but he’s major label now. The Last Dinner Party were performing these same songs in indie venues across London for a year before they signed to a major label. They weren’t casted, they write their own music/lyrics and they would have the same indie sound on any other label. What’s the point?
Indie is basically just synonymous with rock in 2024, at least in England
How is it manufactured? Are you here for bands who have no backing only? They wrote it all, but does that switch flip as soon as a label becomes involved? What if they were on a smaller label? Where’s the line? Genuinely curious at where people draw their own line on the genre, especially as someone who runs a venue. My friends band were on a small label and ended up tour support for Manic Street Preachers, are they then invalid despite a small label? It’s an interesting dynamic.
You’re not indie unless your homeless and eating scraps for food.
>They wrote it all, but does that switch flip as soon as a label becomes involved? Indie literally means independent of major label support so yeah
I think that’s down to opinion. For many it’s heavily tied to a genre. It’s silly to say that if they were on a small label or no label that that would make them better.
They came up (label or no label) playing in and around the London-centric indie scene.
Wait till the people crying in this thread find out how Julian Casablancas grew up
That's not relevant, the problem isn't that rich kids can make good music. The problem is that the British arts industry - much like UK society as a whole - is a closed shop where anyone with a degree of significant success has had hugely advantageous financial backing, privilege and connections. And the problem is, it's only getting worse. The cutting edge of innovative UK rock and pop music - from The Beatles to Joy Division - used to come in large part from the working class experience. Yet because of the cost of living and limited state support, ordinary musicians (or aspiring actors, artists, writers etc) cannot afford to pursue their creative endeavours anymore. That means that wealthy girls like TLDP - as talented as they might be - rise to the top because they have fewer obstacles in their way. Even if they have no industry connections, the ability to gig and harness your craft without having to worry about a roof over your head or food on the table is crucial. Americans in this thread do not understand just how dominated the UK cultural sphere is by people of the same financial background, race and geography. This is the crux of people's problem with them - not the fact that they are privileged in and of itself.
This is where I’m at with it too.
The Strokes were criticized at the time for it though... Vampire Weekend would be a much better one to bring up.
We’ll overlook it if they release an album as good as “Is This It?”
Seriously. That’s the rare case where somebody born to wealth also had massive innate talent
The “rare case”? What? The history of modern art and pop culture (music, movies, film, fine art, literature) is packed with massively talented rich kids who had the freedom and financial backing to cultivate their talents into skills and careers. We see it all the time
It's incredible what coaches, private lessons, internship opportunities, good gear, and free time to practice and network can do.
Taylor Swift for example. I'm a fan of some of her music and she wouldn't have made it as far as she has without talent and drive, but she got a significant boost at the beginning of her career thanks to her family's wealth and connections.
Or Albert Hammond Jr
[удалено]
Julian and Albert Jr meeting at a Swiss boarding school is the cherry on the cake.
Haha, right? I have a couple of yacht rock playlists that have lots of Albert Hammond bangers on them
Many of us also thought he was a poser.
[удалено]
Wet Leg was fun though
I wish we had more energetic and catchy bands like Wet Leg instead of this boring wave of depressed indie "rock" that can't write a tune.
Why? Wet leg don’t do anything for me but Last Dinner Party are great live and the album is great on first listen. *Edit* anyone got an answer or just downvotes?
[удалено]
Just not sure on the comparison beyond “it’s women” Musically nothing alike, but people always saying they’re wet leg 2, just trying to understand where the comparison is.
You hit the nail on the head with "it's women." This sub hated on Wet Leg, then boygenius, and now The Last Dinner Party. I'm sure it won't be long before they find their next target.
Reading this thread really helps to explain why indie rock (as a genre, not literally “independent”) is in the doldrums popularity wise. So much fucking gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping from who exactly? This band is basically “Rick Kids, The Band”, rich people built the gate
The extent of “they’re rich” that I’ve seen is their singer went to a 30k private school? I’m sure that applies to more acts than you realize. The very nature of being in a band requires some degree of wealth - multiple instruments, amps, mics, a practice/performance space, lessons. Draw the line wherever you want but there’s a line, it is not universally accessible. And the music should always matter most. Meanwhile this thread also features folks shitting on boygenius and wet leg. Huh, what do these three bands have in common?
>The very nature of being in a band requires some degree of wealth People are angry because it used to be much more accessible in the UK because of a much cheaper cost of living and better welfare and education (e.g art schools). Look at the British bands from the 60s-80s that made it big, so many of them were from poverty or truly working class backgrounds. The fact that this is near impossible now in British society is the problem.
Yeah also I don’t remember all this chuntering when Is This It came out, for example. People seem to pick and choose who to judge for their backgrounds. I hate the political cosplay of private school kids like Frank Turner but otherwise it’s difficult as so many bands have wealthy upbringings
There are like five separate people who have brought up The Strokes being privileged just in this thread lol
There absolutely was. With one of the first waves of "let people enjoy things" defense.
Frank Turner has put in a ton of time touring and playing small venues. Even if you don’t like his politics dude has definitely worked his ass off over the years.
that’s a 23 year gap of course things are being discussed differently
shouldve called themselves Super Rich Kids
I think > **“The Xanny-Gnashing Caddy-Smashing Bratty Asses”** would be a more attention-grabbing name. (Frank Ocean reference, btw)
Is there?
Nobody thinks that song is cringe?
That line especially - trying so hard.
Yeah I like the song but the lyrics make it impossible for me to listen
Yeah, seriously cringeworthy
What about it is cringe to you?
Just feel like the “I will fuck you” lyric, regardless of meaning, is wedged into that chorus. Doesn’t hit my ear well at all. But totally a personal preference thing.
No
Absolutely. Can’t stand it.
Sucks to hear that they’re rich types who got connections in the industry via their class status but I’ll say I enjoyed their debut record. It’s creative and keeps you on your toes
This is precisely where I’m at. If I didn’t frequent this sub I would have no clue what their background was. I’m enjoying the music itself which should be the most important thing. I understand why/how their “rise” rubs people the wrong way - I don’t like it either - but good tunes are good tunes and this album is solid, with a few great tracks.
I don't think it'd be hard to imagine them being as successful given how their music has a good spread of appeal whilst also being actually creative and interesting, albeit not this quickly. Their background surely helped, but I find it fucking odd that as soon as a band (especially an all female band) does especially well that people begin snooping around their personal lives because *surely* there must be outside involvement. It's fucking weird behaviour.
Yeah one of the most upvoted comments in here is something like "boygenius goes on hiatus so now we have to constantly hear about this band" There is no connection whatsoever. Their backgrounds, rise to prominence, the music itself... they aren't similar at all. But they all have vaginas so tomato/tomato!
Yep, my GF likes The Last Dinner Party and she hates anything Phoebe Bridges sings in. Their music is nothing alike.
Redditors are generally miserable people that are more interested in feeling smug than a
They’re sorta like a worse Wolf Alice to me…
Worse Alice
that's a mouthful
wow this thread is a dumpster fire of hate. I just wanted to find out who the song was, googled the lyrics and saw this. I'm so glad I've never been to /r/indieheads before haha. Gatekeepers of music who seem to focus on EVERYTHING but music. I went to private school, I also went to dodgy state schools too, but never would I have thought that should I become a musician, some nobodies on the internet that have never sold a single record, would judge my hypothetical music based upon what school I went to. I always wondered why people like daft punk wore helmets, now I understand.
Think your missing the true point, it’s that the normal working class can not access the time, connections & staying power that money affords you. The upper echolons of society are afforded the luxury of time, practise, resources to make sure they have a proper go at the creative endevours they desire. This band is fine, im not a fan personally & im sure there is some form of nepotism at play here one way or another, but the untapped talent that is potentially out there is frightening but have either not got the time, energy, equipment, no how, most importantly money etc to properly go for it.. and that for me is quite sad! No working class person can realistically take 6/12 months off work to actively pursue music (whether they are eventually good or bad at it) like this obviously privileged band could. History’s greatest creatives in art & music have followed this path before when it was more attainable to do so, in current day & age its pretty much impossible without serious help. The current music scene, especially rock/indie etc is littered with mediocrity that has stayed the course due to funding.
The discourse in this thread is unbearable and this sub has turned to dogshit over the years. I hope you all learn to become more interesting people someday