Royal Blood and "Real" Music

darthed1981

Interesting article in the Grauniad today, with a reflection on Mike Kerr (new nickname "Wang", presumably, amongst kids at Big Weekend) making a pillock of himself last weekend.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/31/thank-you-royal-blood-for-heralding-the-death-of-real-music

Thought was worth a separate discussion, rather than bring back the thread specifically about Royal Blood.

It's the latest of a long line of musical stars who have made pillocks of themselves while proclaiming rock = good and pop = bad.  It's also an opinion which is often implied or openly expressed here (as although every music genre uses guitar, it's rock that got most of us here into it).

Most of the ideas about credibility are dubious at best, however, it's hard to argue there hasn't been a certain magic to bands who write their own songs, play their own instruments and have obvious talent.

Still, are we going to argue that George Michael hasn't got talent?  Prince wasn't really a rocker and it's actually extremely hard to argue against the talent and hard work necessary to make it in a pure pop act like Girls Aloud or One Direction (and being easy on the eye is a gift you are born with, so arguably a talent).  Hell just the diet is more work than I'd want.  Lewis Capaldi fortunately has the voice and the songwriting talent to avoid that bit.

I'm a fan of Youtuber James Hargreaves, and his campaign to get "real" music, which to him, and to some extent to me as well, means alternative rock, which he identifies as dying out with the Arctic Monkeys.  Presumably chucking Wolf Alice and Nothing But Thieves in the "pop" pile...  He made a great video recently though about the new industry meaning that signing to a major label is a terrible idea...

So what do we think?  Does anyone really believe like Mike Kerr that he automatically should get massive applause for his worthy "rock" from an audience sitting waiting for Lewis Capaldi?  Are they fools for not sitting waiting for Whitesnake or Extreme?  Or in reality should a new industry, free from the major label's evil cash-grabbing produce unparalleled creativity and freedom for artists, regardless of genre?

monquixote

I read that article earlier in the week and quite enjoyed it. 

When I used to play in original material bands we had a running joke about people who were into "Proper music" which was essentially looping 4 diatonic chord, mid paced indie rock with no riffs, or dynamics where every track built up over 6 minutes to an epic outro where the singer chanted "YEAH, CMON SOUUUUUUL" or something similar essentially modelled on Embrace, Richard Ashcroft and later period Oasis. 

We used to joke that "Proper music" was our least favourite genre. 

It's also coupled with a belief that "Proper music" is objectively the best music and all other people have been tricked by something evil called "MARKETING" which makes kids enjoy Harry Styles rather than the Second Coming by the Stone Roses.
It's also coupled with the belief that musical talent constantly goes unrecognised. Which I disagree with as when I was gigging around Camden we saw the Magic Numbers, The Darkness and Hard Fi while they were still unsigned and it was obvious they were so much better than all the other bands we played with we might as well give up.

There seems to be this belief that rock music is eternal rather than acknowledging that it's something that only really appeared in the late 60's and has already been in decline for around 15 years now. 

It will never die, but it's becoming "genre music" rather than pop music like Jazz, Folk or Blues which is why you are starting to see the classic rock revue shows and rock musicals etc. 

fastonebaz

I need my music to have decent guitar solos in it.  Then I enjoy it.

PolarityMan

Pfft royal blood are barely rock as it is.

Philly_Q

darthed1981 said:

Or in reality should a new industry, free from the major label's evil cash-grabbing produce unparalleled creativity and freedom for artists, regardless of genre?

I don't think that's possible, because we're always going to put things into a genre box, whether the bands want it or not.  Genres are nonsense really, it's pointless debating whether a band is death metal, black metal, or blackened death metal.... but it's a useful reference point - will I like them?  Who do they sound like?

As an artist, you can't really transcend genres unless you literally dabble in all of them - which could become an academic exercise in playing music you don't actually like, just for the sake of it.  And as a listener, I'd buy the album (so old-fashioned) and skip three quarters of the tracks.

Of course there are artists who've glided, chameleon-like, through different genres over the years - Bowie being probably the most obvious one.  The Beatles changed enormously over less than a decade, but they were true pioneers.  Even Queen were very different at the end of their career than they were at the start.  Madonna has reinvented herself multiple times and (although I'm not familiar with much of her music) I think Taylor Swift has recorded some pretty eclectic music?

From a personal point of view, I'm never going to say "rock = good and pop = bad", I got into music in the first place by listening to the Top 40 in the 1970s.  But my preference is for rock music, and I'm not going to go out of my way to listen to artists from other genres just so I can try to appreciate their talent - there are only so many hours in the day, and I'm not a professional music critic. 

You can spend all day telling me how talented Lewis Capaldi is, but I've heard a couple of his songs and sorry, they don't interest me.  And let's be honest, I've never liked Prince either.  I'm sure he was a genius but 80% of his music I simply don't like.

darthed1981 said:

Most of the ideas about credibility are dubious at best, however, it's hard to argue there hasn't been a certain magic to bands who write their own songs, play their own instruments and have obvious talent.

On that specific point... the music I like is generally made by bands who write their own songs and play their own instruments.  You could be a great musician and have no knack for songwriting, or vice versa, I suppose.  But most of the music I like comes from a group of people working within the framework of their own gifts, abilities and limitations.  That's how they develop a style, an identity.

Again I'm talking from a dad-rock perspective, but to my mind many long-established bands have lost their identity by bringing in outside songwriters and overly-involved producers.  Aerosmith have totally lost it.  Scorpions have wandered on and off the tracks (their latest album is all band-written, and it's pretty good).  Ozzy Osbourne.... he puts himself entirely in the hands of whatever producer he's working with, and does anyone honestly give a fuck about his last half-dozen studio albums?

monquixote said:

There seems to be this belief that rock music is eternal rather than acknowledging that it's something that only really appeared in the late 60's and has already been in decline for around 15 years now. 

It will never die, but it's becoming "genre music" rather than pop music like Jazz, Folk or Blues which is why you are starting to see the classic rock revue shows and rock musicals etc. 

I think you're right.  Rock and pop music (in the sense of music created by the artists, not some crooner going in a studio with an orchestra and a "standard" song) was less than a decade old when I was born, and I guess I always thought of it as something which had come into existence and would now be there forever.  But I'm not sure there'll ever be a resurgence of rock music played by new, young bands which will invade the consciousness of the general public.

Sorry, I'm going all over the place here.  If this was an essay I'd have to go off and re-write it properly.

axisus

Everyone's opinion on music is a load of bollox. Me included.

drofluf

Philly_Q said:

On that specific point... the music I like is generally made by bands who write their own songs and play their own instruments.  You could be a great musician and have no knack for songwriting, or vice versa, I suppose.  But most of the music I like comes from a group of people working within the framework of their own gifts, abilities and limitations.  That's how they develop a style, an identity.

That’s my view as well; sometimes I worry I’m being narrow minded but almost everyone I like has the ability to stand in front of a crowd and play their own material. 

And I’d forgotten all about Royal Blood until their little outburst; I’m unlikely to forget them now but not perhaps for the reason they intended. 

ICBM

Being popular does not make music bad, nor does being obscure make it good.

I love pop music, always have. I have no interest in whether it's mainstream or commercial - or not - as long as I like it.

darthed1981

monquixote said:

I read that article earlier in the week and quite enjoyed it. 

When I used to play in original material bands we had a running joke about people who were into "Proper music" which was essentially looping 4 diatonic chord, mid paced indie rock with no riffs, or dynamics where every track built up over 6 minutes to an epic outro where the singer chanted "YEAH, CMON SOUUUUUUL" or something similar essentially modelled on Embrace, Richard Ashcroft and later period Oasis. 

We used to joke that "Proper music" was our least favourite genre. 

It's also coupled with a belief that "Proper music" is objectively the best music and all other people have been tricked by something evil called "MARKETING" which makes kids enjoy Harry Styles rather than the Second Coming by the Stone Roses.
It's also coupled with the belief that musical talent constantly goes unrecognised. Which I disagree with as when I was gigging around Camden we saw the Magic Numbers, The Darkness and Hard Fi while they were still unsigned and it was obvious they were so much better than all the other bands we played with we might as well give up.

There seems to be this belief that rock music is eternal rather than acknowledging that it's something that only really appeared in the late 60's and has already been in decline for around 15 years now. 

It will never die, but it's becoming "genre music" rather than pop music like Jazz, Folk or Blues which is why you are starting to see the classic rock revue shows and rock musicals etc. 

I agree with all of this - as much as I love the guitar music of the late 90s, the whole journalism and vibe of the "scene" - which the bands totally bought into because of all the coke -   was summed up so so so superbly by this...

darthed1981

Philly_Q said:

I don't think that's possible, because we're always going to put things into a genre box, whether the bands want it or not.  Genres are nonsense really, it's pointless debating whether a band is death metal, black metal, or blackened death metal.... but it's a useful reference point - will I like them?  Who do they sound like?

...

You can spend all day telling me how talented Lewis Capaldi is, but I've heard a couple of his songs and sorry, they don't interest me.  And let's be honest, I've never liked Prince either.  I'm sure he was a genius but 80% of his music I simply don't like.

...

On that specific point... the music I like is generally made by bands who write their own songs and play their own instruments.  You could be a great musician and have no knack for songwriting, or vice versa, I suppose.  But most of the music I like comes from a group of people working within the framework of their own gifts, abilities and limitations.  That's how they develop a style, an identity.
...
Again I'm talking from a dad-rock perspective, but to my mind many long-established bands have lost their identity by bringing in outside songwriters and overly-involved producers.  Aerosmith have totally lost it.  Scorpions have wandered on and off the tracks (their latest album is all band-written, and it's pretty good).  Ozzy Osbourne.... he puts himself entirely in the hands of whatever producer he's working with, and does anyone honestly give a fuck about his last half-dozen studio albums?

Thanks for the long post, I'll try numbering these points...

1. I meant regardless of your genre, the path forward in the industry is unlikely to be a traditional "deal" whatever genre you happen to make music in, rather than in the future that it will be easier to transcend genre, though it will in some ways.

2. Nobody is obliged to like Lewis Capaldi, or Prince for that matter.  Lewis comes with "indie" trappings because he has a guitar and he's a mouthy lad from the working class, but he's unapologetically a pop singer, almost a crooner really.  I think as well even hardcore Prince fans would have to concede that there is far too much mediocre funk in his catalogue.

3. Yes me too, and I agree I become a fan of "bands", like their style and identity and then follow them through thick and thin.  I also love the new Dua Lipa song, so I try and balance both sides of musical me...

4. I expected quite a lot of posts from the "Dad rock" perspective as I suspect that's "Fretboard default"...  interestingly almost all "classic rock" bands I know from a greatest hits perspective, which is an early version for children of the 90s for the really intriguing mish-mash that kids listen to now.  The first generation to have access to all music at all times essentially for free have really embraced it, and while the tip-top of the charts is currently going through a really rough patch currently (though there has always been loads of shite in any given chart) the proliferation of scenes as James Hargreaves points out means although no single act will dominate the agenda ever again, there will always be something exciting round the corner.

stickyfiddle

Most classic rock is fucking tedious. 

Frankly the same is true for most pop, metal, indie, folk, country, etc etc 

I’ve largely given up caring these days 

Philly_Q

darthed1981 said:
I meant regardless of your genre, the path forward in the industry is unlikely to be a traditional "deal" whatever genre you happen to make music in

Coming back to that point - and I see what you meant now - another aspect of today's music industry which interests me is the death (or near death) or the traditional record deal.  In some ways it's easy and cheap for bands to finance their own recordings - indeed they may have no other choice - and although that gives them creative freedom, they may never get a chance to work with an experienced producer who can give an outside view, help with arrangements and generally just make them sound better.

If rock music does become a niche, almost underground genre then the "big production" may become a thing of the past, and that's a bit of a shame.

Oddly enough, at the other end of the spectrum, for the few artists who do still sell a lot of records, and go into studios with a big budget, the role of the producer (or multiple producers, in many cases) is bigger than it's ever been.

Blueingreen

"Popism" or "anti-rockism" has been around for I would guess around 20 years, since the early oughties.  I'd also say it's been the dominant strand of mainstream critical orthodoxy for most of that time.  The slightly weird thing about the Guardian piece is that it's a reminder that critics often still want to present these ideas as though they are fresh.  But I think almost every critic writing on pop/rock for a broadsheet newspaper had adopted an ant-rockist position by about 15 years ago.  There will still be specialist rock magazines, various forums etc where there are people cleaving to the old religion, but for mainstream critics this battle was fought and won long ago.  From that perspective Royal Blood outing themselves as dicks thinking they are playing "real music" is just too gloriously juicy a target to miss.

CaseOfAce

Blueingreen said:

"Popism" or "anti-rockism" has been around for I would guess around 20 years, since the early oughties.  I'd also say it's been the dominant strand of mainstream critical orthodoxy for most of that time.  The slightly weird thing about the Guardian piece is that it's a reminder that critics often still want to present these ideas as though they are fresh.  But I think almost every critic writing on pop/rock for a broadsheet newspaper had adopted an ant-rockist position by about 15 years ago.  There will still be specialist rock magazines, various forums etc where there are people cleaving to the old religion, but for mainstream critics this battle was fought and won long ago.  From that perspective Royal Blood outing themselves as dicks thinking they are playing "real music" is just too gloriously juicy a target to miss.

... and the whole rock is worthy, pop is beyond contempt thing has been running even longer e.g. Twisted Sister smashing records at their 70's gigs as part of the Disco Sucks movement.

It was just as boneheaded then as it is now.

RocknRollDave

There is music I like, and music I don’t like.

Some of the music I like I would argue all day and night is, objectively, valid, vital art.
Some of the music I like, I’ll happily admit, is drivel…but I like it anyway.


The music I do not like can also be split into these two categories.

Again, there is only one distinction that matters:
music you like and music you don’t like.

roberty

Everett True was banging this drum back in 2011

http://collapseboard.com/institutionalised-sexism-at-the-guardian-the-chiffons-vs-george-harrison/

I remember reading this back then and it's been lodged in my mind since

If you don't know Everett True, he's the ex NME journo who wheeled Kurt Cobain onto the stage at Reading in 1992

Pop-ism or rock elitism can be interpreted as a kind of misogyny 

Octavio

If people are having a good time then who cares. There's enough misery in the world.

A line from that link sums it up for me:
"Why the need to devalue one to praise the other?"

darthed1981

roberty said:

Everett True was banging this drum back in 2011

http://collapseboard.com/institutionalised-sexism-at-the-guardian-the-chiffons-vs-george-harrison/

I remember reading this back then and it's been lodged in my mind since

If you don't know Everett True, he's the ex NME journo who wheeled Kurt Cobain onto the stage at Reading in 1992

Pop-ism or rock elitism can be interpreted as a kind of misogyny 

Very true, it's sorta all kinds of elitism really.

I remember some guy losing his shit on a facebook post once going "music isn't about that it's about youth culture and scenes" and I thought, though didn't type "you dopey sod, at MOST it's about that if you are in a scene and you are young... then of course you grow out of it!"

Philly_Q said:

Coming back to that point - and I see what you meant now - another aspect of today's music industry which interests me is the death (or near death) or the traditional record deal.  In some ways it's easy and cheap for bands to finance their own recordings - indeed they may have no other choice - and although that gives them creative freedom, they may never get a chance to work with an experienced producer who can give an outside view, help with arrangements and generally just make them sound better.

If rock music does become a niche, almost underground genre then the "big production" may become a thing of the past, and that's a bit of a shame.

Oddly enough, at the other end of the spectrum, for the few artists who do still sell a lot of records, and go into studios with a big budget, the role of the producer (or multiple producers, in many cases) is bigger than it's ever been.

I guess an experienced producer has to be compared to an expensive one - how much does the Venn diagram cross over?  Studio time in itself can be expensive, and an engineer can be expensive, but the payback of something that sounds excellent as compared to spending many hours putting together something at home in reaper could be an excellent investment.

You aren't probably thinking of him, but of course the most staggeringly successful producer of the last twenty years is probably Calvin Harris - he probably accidentally writes a number one single if he drops a keyboard - without major labels it's doubtful that he would have worked with Dua Lipa, or Ellie Goulding, but maybe they would have networked and made some music - it seems likely all would still have pursued it.

CaseOfAce

I can't let this one go unmentioned - when the Guardian contributor states in that article:

"There’s also nothing wrong with being unmoved by Royal Blood and wishing they would hurry up and finish so that Lewis Capaldi can get going."

surely unintentional humour there? 

"Right you mother*££@$£$ - this next one's called Somebody You Loved - let's kick out the jams..."

JezWynd

One of the most innovative artists working in music in the last fifty years completely ignored the superficial boundaries and labels that rock journalists and the industry love to impose. David Bowie.

UnclePsychosis

If you put a gun to my head and forced me to define what 'real music' was I can guarantee you whatever definition I came up with would exclude Royal fucking Blood, thats for sure.

























Cheap jokes aside, I completely agree with @monquixote . Trying to define 'real music' is for pretentious dickheads. There's only two kinds of music: music you like, and music you don't like.