The Klaxons

G

gek-opel

entered apprentice
I watch TV- but I don't like it very much. When my strength returns I will stop. However the internet can have just as great a numbing effect of course (even better as its level of interaction creates an endless universe that TV can only barely approach)
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Mr. Tea said:
So...

...Spaced, The League Of Gentlemen (more of a sketch show, but never mind), Peep Show, Nighty Night, I'm Alan Partridge, Nathan Barley, The Mighty Boosh and Saxondale are all unremittingly awful? And that's just shows from the past few years - if you want to talk about old stuff, Blackadder, The Young Ones and Bottom are some of the funniest things that've ever been on TV.
Click to expand...

Yup, fucking dreadful, all of them. I fucking hate the aesthetic, hate it. Sorry m8.
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
noel emits said:
One of the main problems with TV as a medium is the way in which it effectively shifts mental activity from left to right brain and induces alpha wave (dreamlike) activity, making it an effective mainline into the subconscious that bypasses the critical faculties. Watching TV has also been shown to trigger the release of endorphins in the brain possibly making it actually physically addictive. Can't say I've seen any evidence of that though ;)
Click to expand...

Yow! You read Four Arguments For The Elimination Of Television too!


Right on! I bought and given away so many copies of that book Jerry owes me a fuckin night out.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
mos dan said:
THERE IS NO RHYME, REASON, OR LOGIC TO ANY OF IT!!!!

that bothers me way, way more than the klaxons winning. who, incidentally, sounded so pathetically reedy/weedy in their live performance that surely the mercury's tv producers must've been at least slightly ashamed? like, if that's one of the highlights of the BEST album of the year, well then... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I disagree with that, and there's a sterling ddefence of them here.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/pop/story/0,,2163252,00.html#article_continue

They made a very wrong choice with the Klaxons, but when your remit is that wide it's hardly suprising there's no discernable pattern.
 
M

mms

sometimes
crackerjack said:
I disagree with that, and there's a sterling ddefence of them here.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/pop/story/0,,2163252,00.html#article_continue

They made a very wrong choice with the Klaxons, but when your remit is that wide it's hardly suprising there's no discernable pattern.
Click to expand...

i'm personally quite glad that that prize exists tbh, we're real music people here but it introduces some quite interesting acts into the 50 quid man realm. They're bands that might sell 100 k or more if lucky, often alot less, the kind of acts the majors on the whole drop after the first album if they ever sign em at all, and the awards give them a bit of limelight. This is essentially a good thing.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
mms said:
i'm personally quite glad that that prize exists tbh, we're real music people here but it introduces some quite interesting acts into the 50 quid man realm. They're bands that might sell 100 k or more if lucky, often alot less, the kind of acts the majors on the whole drop after the first album if they ever sign em at all, and the awards give them a bit of limelight. This is essentially a good thing.
Click to expand...

Quite. Does anyone here really think Mercury is inferior to the Brits etc just because the others have clearer criteria (i.e. be rilly rilly famous and turn up to the ceremony)?
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Maybe, what with Dizzee winning in 2003 (?), choosing the Klaxons feels like a betrayal of what at one stage seemed quite an exciting and 'relevant' music prize. Looking at the list of contenders for 2007, it does look a bit 'NME end-of-year-poll' to me. Do the Arctic Monkeys really need to be nominated again - they hardly need to be introduced to anyone, do they? It seems unsure as to whether it's a vote for best album, or an opportunity to introduce new acts to the public. Doesn't make it a bad thing, but a bit more imagination/risk-taking wouldn't go amiss?
 
T

tox

Factory Girl
crackerjack said:
I disagree with that, and there's a sterling ddefence of them here.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/pop/story/0,,2163252,00.html#article_continue
Click to expand...

Interesting article that. To my mind its definitely the fault of the prize itself that the Mercury gets viewed so negatively by so many people though. I mean I looked in every obvious place for these criteria and came up with nothing. Why they would keep it a secret only for the Guardian baffles me.

Still, nice to see there are criteria, although at the end of the day I think its sad that The Klaxons won. Perhaps they picked the wrong set of judges... after all, I'm sure XFM and the NME have plenty of their own awards to give out and why not ask more "in-the-know" people? Why bias the judging with people from the Rock media? Why not exchange the editor of NME for that of RWD, and XFM's Lauren Laverne for 1xtra's Benji B?!

Anyway, now we have the criteria, at least we have something to argue over!

1. "That this was an album prize, not an artist prize"
2. "This was an award for a record that sounded fresh and original"
3. "That moved music forwards not backwards"
4. "That was contemporary rather than retro"
5. "That was consistent in its vision and execution"
6. "That could capture music in Britain in 2007" - "Without any recourse to fashion trends of tittle-tatter"

My personal opinion: Whichever way you slice it, these criteria don't match up to the shortlist or winner. Just to pick out a few inconsistencies; The Klaxons vision of melding rave and indie is pretty inconsistent with their actual output. The album is ropey, even though the singles are ok. They released a bad cover of a '90s dance classics - is that "fresh and original"? Whether you can separate The Klaxons from "fashion trends" and still have them capturing "music in Britain in 2007" is also very debatable. And, surprise surprise, I don't think the record's very "forward." I might have stuck up for The Klaxons over in the nu-rave thread, but when they're proclaimed as best album of the year it makes me want to cry! Fun to argue about though!

Whether the criteria are actually very good is another post in itself and I can't really be arsed with thinking about that now.
 
N

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
The choice of the Klaks does seem utterly indefensible with the criteria for the prize laid out like that, not that it didn't anyway.
 
swears

swears

preppy-kei
Any criteria for shortlisting and giving out these awards are going to totally arbitary and difficult to stick to anyway. There's no such thing as the "best" album, any year, so I'd rather just see some crank's list of favourite obscure releases, at least that would be interesting.
 
N

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
They must have a chairperson?

Shouldn't that person have been going "The Klaxons? Are you fucking kidding me? Did you even read the rules?", or words to that effect.

Having said that, from the shortlist it would have been very hard to meet many of those criteria.
 
M

msoes

Well-known member
Maybe, what with Dizzee winning in 2003 (?), choosing the Klaxons feels like a betrayal of what at one stage seemed quite an exciting and 'relevant' music prize.
Click to expand...

nah, its always been shit, dizzee winning was just a fluke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top