Kate Hate
The Worst Album Of The Year . . .
. . . According to the Independent on Friday. I only saw the headline, and now the link to the review is down on their website. Did anybody here read it? Was it by Andy Gill? In a way, I don't need to see it, as I've seen the arguments against Kate Nash ("the new Lily Allen" - oh, really?) rehearsed by other male music writers. Alexis Petredis has a right go at Made Of Bricks in his Guardian review. Well, I've got the album and I really like it. I really like Kate Nash, and I honestly can't see what the problem is. First, there's a Lily Allen link in that she appeared to come out of nowhere, and benefitted, like many artists now, from MySpace groundswell. Fine. And Lily Allen, I think, offered her patronage early on. Either way, these two things don't send a new artist to number one in the album charts unless there's something beneath the hype and the backstory.
Nash emerged from the BRIT School in Croydon, which seems to be a mark against her. We have to get over this. Do we dismiss the work of Francis Coppola and George Lucas because they went to film school? I can appreciate why some will find her DIY music and her "ordinary" delivery and subject matter irksome, because it's not Rock, and it's not Soaring Choruses and it's not Sexy in the conventional sense, but to me she falls in with the likes of Jamie T, Mike Skinner and Plan B, white urban/suburban bedrooms rappers. The single Foundations is a kitchen sink drama in song, with Nash playing the part, I think, of someone a little older than herself and trapped in a co-habitational relationship with a man whom she hopes is not "the one". Nash herself still lives with her mum. There's mention of eating cheese on toast in Merry Happy. Another song on the album is about mouthwash (it's called Mouthwash and is the next single, which will of course actually be playlisted by Radios 1 and 2 before it comes out this time). This mouthwash and toast stuff seems to lie at the heart of much antipathy towards her. Why? God is in the details. This one's about Kate, taking stock of her life and her face and body ("I've got a family and I drink cups of tea ... and this is my brain, and even if you try and hold me back there's nothing you can gain ... "), but it's also shot through with doubt and self-consciousness and hope and entreaties for respect. It's amazing to me to hear anything from the "indie" firmament that's about anything, and the personal is by its nature political. Ken Loach's films (sorry, I'm in a Ken Loach frame of mind - I'll explain later) are human stories, not broadly political ones, but they speak of greater struggles. Kate Nash seems to be an observer of life, but also a storyteller. She's playing parts. That may or may not be her own voice. It doesn't worry me. It's an affecting one. David Bowie used not to sing in his own voice, but he came from a performance tradition as I think Kate Nash does. The song Mariella drops into a kind of impression of someone playing a working class girl in a 1940s British film. It's most beguiling.
Dickhead is like a modern white blues: "Why you being a dickhead for? You're just fucking up situations." Again, I think her bad grammar and sentence construction ("you don't know nothing") are thought of as affectation. But since when did pop music have to be sung in the singer's own voice. What about every British artist who sings in an American accent? At least she sounds English. What she does have in common with Lily Allen is a sense of humour, something I really value in Arctic Monkeys, to name one rare indie band of today I have an ounce of time for. She's sharp with a rhyme like Allen too. But her music couldn't be more different. It's not ska-reggae-inflected pop, it's closer to folk (Birds - "they can shit on your head ... but when you look at them, they're beautiful, and that's how I feel about you"). Even the production numbers, like Pumpkin Song, where her speech turns to sweet song, have a rough and ready feel that's absent from Allen. There's a feel of punk poetry too, and her appreciation of John Cooper Clarke is not a surprise, even if she lacks his bile. Funny thing is, her first single Caroline Is A Victim (which I've never actually heard!), isn't on the album. Whyever not?
The album struck me as too short, which was my only real complaint, but it's not really. It just seems to fly by, which I think does it credit. She sounds a bit like Regina Spektor, yes, but there's less self-conscious New York artiness. It actually reminds me, in its scratchiness and in the rough, unsung nature of her voice, of some of my favourite early 80s post-punk from ladies, such as The Raincoats or The Slits or Delta Five. This is a fine tradition, and from before Nash was born - perhaps her parents played this kind of music - and Cooper Clarke - to her? I'm in love with this record. And I truly believe we're going through one of the worst periods for music since the late 90s when Travis were welcomed as conquering heroes, and the early 21st century, when the Strokes had to save us. That's how bad it was.
Well, Kate Nash is a ray of hope, I think.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 5:22 PM
62 Comments
62 Comments:
So far, I am happy with Kate Nash's sound. And this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't like Lily Allen's sound. Oh, alright, I would sooner bathe in Jellied eels than listen to Ms Allen. Yet I find Kate Nash refreshing. Must be my ears.
It's curious really, the Tesco/Alfresco line from Lily Allen is nails down the blackboard for me, yet I'm charmed by the pronunciation of Bit-tah from Ms Nash.
Worst periods for music? I couldn't disagree more. Mind you, I don't believe in good and bad periods in music - the good stuff is always there but sometimes you have to search harder for it.
This year there have been three excellent albums (in my opinion) from The National, Spoon and The Besnard Lakes. OK, none of them are from Britain but so what? I've discovered other fantastic stuff this year via downloading and later buying the CDs (Panda Bear, Candie Payne, Parts & Labor, Lucky Soul, Charlotte Gainsbourg, A Sunny Day in Glasgow, 1990s, Amiina, Battles etc etc).
I saw a Canadian singer songwriter called Patrick Watson last night who was absolutely terrific.
I'm glad you've written this because I saw Andy Gill's review ("Pole position for the worst album of the year") and it really rankled - particularly because I usually at least respect his reviews even if I don't agree with them.
I like Lily Allen's music and her who-swiped-my-beehive look, but I suspect she didn't have much to do in the studio while the album was being recorded. Nothing wrong with that but I think Kate Nash is the real deal. And while Lily Allen's songs seem to be essentially an expression of an attitude (or a front), Kate Nash's are about the kind of real emotions that Coldplay can only attempt to express with a key change. And she's very funny too. How did Andy Gill miss that? He's not normally the sort to dismiss, say, Morrissey as a straight-up miserablist.
I've a feeling if she sang with Regina Spektor's accent (and I like her too - Us is possibly my favourite song of the last ten years) then she'd be being feted as the coolest thing on the planet for at least the next month. (Funnily enough there's not a huge distance between Nash's "Bit-tah" and Spektor's "Beh-ah" on Fidelity.) At least she sings with the accent she speaks with. As you point out, her accent is hardly as ridiculous as Mick Jagger's singing Little Red Rooster.
I've seen Kate Nash twice in recent weeks, at the Ben & Jerry's Summer Sundae and the Electric Gardens festival just down the road from me in Faversham, and she was the most enjoyable act both times. She reminds me a bit of Billy Bragg, the tunes may not be the strongest element, but it's more than made up for in it's delivery. By the way, my kids love the 'Shit Song'....you can't beat some good old fashoned swearing in a pop song, especially if you're 12 years old.
I don't intend to buy either Allen or Nash, but find both reasonably appealing. I do think they sound similar, but Kate Nash is definitely not a hollow copy. Maybe the inevitable Lily Allen backlash has just been directed at Kate?
As a wannabe songwriter I like their songs, preferring Nash over Allen for substance.
The only reason I cannot listen to either is the accent turned up to 11. Bono does it here when he wants to be a real Dub and it gets on my tits then.
Yesterday I sent a demo of a song I had written to a friend in another part of the country. He reminded me to take care with " de time " (the lyric is "the time" with a 'th'). I stood corrected and guilty of the very thing that irks me.
Still can't change my mind though. Bet-tah off sticking to my guns.
I read the review in the Independent and a piece in the previous issue about Kate Nash/Mockney pop stars. This was the only thing to read in the dentist's waiting room yesterday! Can't remembered who penned either though. Both the article and review lumped Kate Nash in with Lily Allen, Jamie T, Just Jack and many others; and I think the 1 star review was a reflection of this view that it is generally a bad thing that young, white, middle-class musicians pretend to be something that they are not. I can't help but agree. She's not the saviour of British music Andrew, she's a barely competent musician who sings with a silly voice - do they actually talk like that in Harrow?
Really enjoy the blog - fantastic reading.
For the record, Anon (and I'm glad you like the blog), I never called Nash the saviour of British music, I just said I really love her album at a time that strikes me as a fallow one for music. The charts are full of truly average rock music that seems to rise to the top due to a general lowering of the bar in terms of quality by the record-buying public.
Also, Anon, I made no mention of Harrow (and I've never been there, so I don't know how they speak, but people speak in all sorts of voices in a single place), and I think I made it clear that I don't mind that she inhabits a "character" on her records, ie. sings/talks in an adopted voice that suits the story being told. I'm far more irked by Lily Allen (whose music I also like) claiming poverty by saying her Mum had to really struggle to pay her school fees. This was Bedales School, which costs eight grand a term. And one chooses to pay school fees, as far as I understand the system.
I also have time for Andy Gill, who does seem to tirelessly review every record that's ever released in the Independent, so I'm disappointed that he's used Kate Nash as a scapegoat for an entire musical genre (if it really can be called that).
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with most of the comments posted here.
I cannot stand Kate Nash, or the whiney estuary accent she has (adopted or not).
I agree that it is a fallow year, but there still is some good music out there. It's a shame the record companies are only going for the safe options these days.
I think that may be the thing that annoys people about Kate Nash - the thought that her record company have just jumped on the Lily Allen bandwagon. Although I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm sure she wouldn't have been given as much airplay as she has if Allen hadn't been there first.
But, as I have pointed out before on this site, all musical tastes are subjective, so I have no problem with other people liking her.
The problem is that she's bound to be playing in every shop I go into, every time I turn on the radio and in the background of every TV show for the next few months. This will piss me off no end.
We need a new Sex Pistols. Can't see it happening at the moment, though.
Incidentally (plug time) check out my band, Crash Amber's Party.
www.myspace.com/crashambersparty
It's like Kate Nash, but good.
I've not heard Nash's album in entirety but have heard quite a few tracks on that there station that someone here used to present on.
What I've heard seems at worst pretty harmless and at best quite charming - I agree with AC, the lyrics strike me as mature beyond the years but presented in a faux naive way which is part of the attraction - I'd understand if folk found her delivery not to their taste, but it doesn't rankle with me. The backlash against Nash can only be an artefact of the media because the bitching started after just one hit single and before the bloody album even hit the shelves! It's getting Python-esque - "I used to have my career shot down in flames half an hour before it started....." Lazy, lazy journalism at it's worst.
I seem to remember Damon Albarn getting some terrible stick for his mockney accent around the time of Parklife. It didn't stop him being taken seriously when he continued to produce great music over the subsequent years - I guess if Nash shows herself to be even half as talented over time, no-one will be mentioning how she sang at the start either.
Is it lazy journalism, or does the fact that these people listen to music for a living enable them to form a faster opinion about good/bad music?
Chris
This quote is curious:
'Either way, these two things don't send a new artist to number one in the album charts unless there's something beneath the hype and the backstory'.
As far back as I can remember, there has barely ever been anything good in the charts.
When I was growing up and reading the NME (when you were writing great articles about anything other than the mainstream for the paper, AC), the charts were filled with tripe, save for the occasional glimmer of hope from the likes of the Wonder Stuff or Senseless Things.
Even during Britpop, only two or three decent singles could be found in the top 3 at any one time. So to judge an album on its chart performance is, for me, completely irrelevant, even in these times when downloads account for chart figures, it's meaningless. I would've thought you'd agree as an ex-NME writer.
I strongly dislike Lily Allen and I dislike Kate Nash only slightly less. They are what I call 'Leg Up Artists'. Their stage background isn't a mark against them in terms of an immediate mark against their music - but it rankles that they have the relevant connections to be heard by music company bosses and A&R men who can't be arsed to go to gigs.
Look at the artists who populate The Brits. Amy, Lily, The Kooks, Melua... all ex-stage school, all bland, all a waste of anyone's time. And all in the position they're currently in because they had a headstart. They lack any integrity as a result.
Lily didn't get ahead from this so-called 'Myspace revolution'. The whole thing was plotted. It's very intricate marketing and it should get the goat of anyone who loves real music as opposed to the beige carpet jingles of these boring no-marks.
The Kate Nash cd is 55 minutes of interminable dreck. Hey, there's a good title for her next offering, and it wouldn't be even slightly ironic!
Well said Swineshead.
The thing that annoys me about Foundations is that it seems to have been written in a way that cynically appeals to teenagers.
Use of the word 'fit'? Check.
Mentions of alcohol? Check.
Unhappy relationship? Check.
All it needs to do is tag a verse at the end talking about hanging round the park and wearing a hoody, and you've got the lot.
Maybe these are mentioned on the album, though.
"You said I must eat so many lemons
'cause i am so bitter."
Really? Your boyfriend ACTUALLY said this did he? Did he really?
It's not very 'street' is it? Surely he would have just left her a text saying he was dumping her for her mate Julie, cos Julie can get served in the offy, innit?
Fucktards.
Having never heard a not of her music, I couldn't possibly comment. But I did download a couple of Lily Allens and she's okay as a novelty act. Everyone sings about 'normal' things thesedays, so it's nothing out of the ordinary. If people don't like her because she's from the Brit School, then what on Earth is the point of the Brit School if not to churn out successful perorming artists?
There's a shocking jealousy thing - professional and otherwise - at large in Britain, But that's nothing new either. We hate success unless it's American, and then it's okay. What's wrong with us?
Wow, fighting talk!
Chris, your charge that Foundations is somehow tailor-made to suit an audience with mention of "fit", alcohol etc. seems to dismiss the possibility that a 20-year-old might actually use the term "fit" and think about alcohol. Does it have to be focus-grouped? Also, at what stage does a song have to be about what someone's boyfriend ACTUALLY (your caps) have said? Of course Kate Nash's boyfriend didn't say the line about the lemons. It's her line, she's the lyricist, she's the one TELLING THE STORY (my caps!) about a young woman in a dying relationship. It's not necessarily Kate's. In fact, I suspect, her being 20, it's not.
For the record, how old are you, Chris? (Ballpark figure.) It strikes me that you have a problem with young people (hoody, hanging round the park - I feel an appearance on Grumpy Old Men coming on, or a job on a government task force).
Again, I like the sound of her record, and the content of her lyrics (and I am talking about the whole album, not just the hit single - there is, as I hoped I'd demonstrated, a lot more to its content than saying "fitt-ah"). I like the fire she lights under people, whether good or bad. I don't see us having this argument about Editors.
I too read Gill’s review which was mean spirited in that it said Nash’s album is in ‘pole position for worst album of the year’ but surely the meaner thing was to run this quote on the front of the section. As for the actual music, I can take it or leave it over the course of an album but a few tracks are pretty good and it’s hard to be nasty to a twenty year old girl who seems quite sweet. If the lyrics and the topics in the song were being sung by an older male then the too saccharine comments might be more valid. “Caroline’s A Victim” isn’t on the album because it’s bloody awful though!! I’m sure I’ve read the Regina Spektor comparison somewhere else and it’s one that I agree with as well.
In terms of being a bad time for music, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by time (This year, this decade, post-Britpop?) but I think this year at least has been a strong one with the period around Feb/Mar seeing at least ten albums being released that would have made my top thirty of the previous three years. Overall though whilst there seems to be a shift in the way rock music in this country is presented. I mean how much of the music played that gets played on Radio’s 1, 2 and 6 is British indie? You can hear that kind of thing on Hollyoaks nowadays as well as bands like The Fratellis on commercial radio. That wouldn’t have happened five years ago and let’s not forget it wasn’t happening on Radio One during the day 15 years ago. I was 15/17 at the turn of the century and whilst in many respects it was rotten to be seeing perfectly competent and melodic bands like Travis and Coldplay being held up as the alternative to the amount of pop being aimed, post Spice Girls, at the pre-teen market in many ways I’m glad that I wasn’t that age five years earlier for Oasis or five years later for The Libertines as it gave me, I think a better grip on the music of the past and means I’m not a fan of sub Oasis and sub Libertines hokum that did well in the wake of both. It’s worth considering that NME reader’s album of the year for 1999 was The Flaming Lips, a record that had barely charted and was also Uncut’s pick. Could we see the erstwhile readers of Q or NME plumping for an equivalent album nowadays or more likely one that was also one of the year’s biggest sellers?
Did you watch Dawkins on Monday Andrew?
Don't start me on the bleedin' Editors!
I'm 27 Andrew. I don't really have a problem with the young 'uns, I was only taking the michael in a half-serious way. I still remember my park days pretty clearly!
I don't doubt that she uses the word 'fit' or thinks about alcohol, it just irks me that putting these thoughts to music passes for good lyric writing these days.
It's the musical equivalent of Tracy Emin's unmade bed.
Of course her boyfriend didn't say that line, no-one did. It's Nash's line, used so she can shoehorn the word 'fit-tah' into the song. Bad lyric writing. That part of the song doesn't ring true, so even if written as a story, it doesn't seem believable to me.
I don't mind her telling a story, but why such a dull one? Girl meets boy, boy turns out to be a bit shit, girl still likes him despite shitness.
I'm sorry, but there's not much more to it than that, is there really? We've heard this a hundred times before, in a hundred better songs.
What happened to songwriting that meant something? The Times They Are A-Changing? Revolution? White Riot? Common People?
I hate this new wave (I think Mike Skinner may be to blame) of writing songs about the bland aspects of life, without actually saying anything deeper.
I'd love a government task force job, but only if music-related!
The Ministry of Rock Affairs!
Mitchell: The Fratellis being considered Indie and featuring on Hollyoaks is precisely why it's a bad time for music!
None of this music is indie or alternative in any sense!
Well obviously, I know that, you know that but it's then no different to the state of the charts any time hence. The only difference is it's dressed as Indie and some kids think it is. (See that racist girl on Big Brother on her entrance video this summer.)
Unobtrusively though North American Indie is in as fit a state as it has been since the last time the GOP was about to leave office (I don't think this a coincidence) and there are plenty of British acts creating great singles, just a dearth of great albums of late in this 'iTunes make an album with three singles, fill the rest with b-sides' climate we have entered. But that's another story.
I think there is certainly an age thing going on here. I'm 37 and I know Andy Gill is older than me. Kate Nash is music by a 19 year old girl for 19 year old girls. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's just not for me.
I don't really want to listen to a whole album of a young girl slagging off her boyfriend. It just does nothing for me. If I wanted to listen to that, I would go and befriend the young girls who hang out in the park, but then I suppose I would be called a pervert?
I guess Andy Gill felt the same way, once you get to a certain age, you just don't have time to listen to young girls moaning, because I'm sure my daughter will give me enough of that in a few year's time. I also hope that when she grows up she's closer to Regina Spektor than Kate Nash when it comes to eloquence and fruity use of the English language!
Oooh, I don't know where to start!
Well, Kate Nash - I'm not a fan. I can see her appeal as 'Foundations' is incredibly catchy, but I do find her irritating. I guess that fact that she's being grouped in with Jamie T, Plan B and Jack Penate makes sense as I can't stand any of them either. It's not that she's awful, I just think she's pretty mediocre and not at all worthy of all the praise (or critcism) that is being heaped on her. She's alright at best. Unlike Jamie T and Jack P who are downright appalling!
The state of the current music scene... well no there isn't a lot of good indie about. I know several indie DJs in London and they say they are struggling to find decent new popular indie to play in their clubs. That's not to say there's nothing - Foals, Los Campesinos, Long Blondes, Klaxons etc - but you can see why the indie world is turning more and more towards remixes by Soulwax and French disco like Justice.
And for those who don't like the dance element - well, you just have to elevate mediocrity. I think that the popularity of the current crop is the music scene making the best of a bad bunch.
"to me she falls in with the likes of Plan B"
What?!!! Andrew, I'm disappointed in you dude! How can you say such a thing? And as for:
"She sounds a bit like Regina Spektor"
I almost had a canary!
In the words of Aretha Franklin: Don't you blaspheme in here!
I think one of the easiest ways to judge where we've been heading is to look at the line-ups for Reading/Leeds since 2000. See how many records artists on the second stages this year have sold compared to some of the headliners seven years ago. Behind Pulp on the Saturday were Beck, Gomez and Super Furry Animals. On the Radio One stage this year I count seven artists with top ten records in the past 18 months.
Sandy! Chill! "Sounds a bit like" and "falls in with the likes of" are pretty soft comparisons. It's not as if I said she "wipes the floor with" or "knocks into a cocked hat" those artists mentioned, whom you clearly rate. I think Plan B is fantastic. No More Eating makes the hairs on the back of my neck stick up. I also like Regina Spektor, despite the fact that the only time I interviewed her, she was a miserable bastard and something of a diva. Probably because we were in a cow shed.
When some are calling her album the worst of the year so far, I knew I was risking my hard-earned reputation by writing how much I love Kate Nash's album, but do you know what? I just do.
Mitchell - not sure what you're trying to say. The line up of festivals this year (apart from Bestival, as far as I can make out) is pretty much awful in terms of headliners.
All it proves is that 'indie' is now a marketing term for dross, not a movement. 'The kids' are buying what they're sold, not seeking an alternative to the spoon-fed.
Klaxons and Arctic Monkeys (neither of whom I particularly rate but would probably have loved at 15) are exceptions to the rule, as are a few other bands who actually played the circuit before making it big.
Lily Allen at Glastonbury?! It wouldn't have happened 10 years ago. It all started when Robbie 'went Indie' by hanging with Oasis. Then released Angels, Elton John-lite. For some reason, at that point alternative and mainstream got all confused and incestuous and the marketing man got the upper hand.
This topic actually makes me quite irate, I am shout-typing.
On a different note, I see Not Going Out's back on September 7.
Andrew, you've made me feel a bit bad for having a go at Kate Nash now.
As much as I dislike her, I hate it when people don't like music I'm enthusiastic about.
It's like bearing your soul, in a way, and when people don't agree with you, it hurts slightly.
I'm glad you've found an album you love, nothing beats that. The last album I bought was a Winifred Atwell 'best of', so I shouldn't really have a go at anyone's taste in music.
I have arguments with a friend of mine all the time about music. I say that Earl Brutus are better the Bluetones, he says the opposite.
We've been having this disagreement for a decade, and will probably still be having it aged 80, in a nursing home somewhere.
I'd be interested in knowing what you think of my band, to be honest Andrew. I'd appreciate an honest opinion. We only have a couple of songs on Myspace at the moment, hastily recorded in a warehouse in Liverpool. (Not that I'm making excuses or anything).
Chris
Poor Kate, I saw her live twice earlier this year and found her utterly charming, I too was cynical (Caroline is a victim stunk) but was overcome by her sunny disposition and chirpy tunes. The Haters and wannabe-Burchills who criticise her for her class, the record industry hype or her vague association with Lily Allen are on the losing side of life, This is simple pop music and it makes people happy.
Oh dear this Middle Class self hatred is becoming an epidemic
It's not middle class self-hatred, Joel Cairo, it's a loathing of record company involvement in the songwriting process. It's a hatred of dishonesty in music. You're all celebrating a product rather than an artist, moulded by stage school into a sellable shape.
I love Blur, a middle class band by definition, because they came from an artistic background and wrote their own songs independently of their record label from Modern Life is Rubbish onwards.
'On the losing side of life'? Unnecessarily rude, I felt.
It's pop music, and it engenders passion! That's a good thing. I like the idea of arguing about who's the best out of Earl Brutus and The Bluetones for ten years. Also, pop music shouldn't be about class. Such self-defeating generalisations would have finished off the Rolling Stones, and the Clash, and countless others from non-poverty-stricken backgrounds. We don't know what "class" Kate Nash is, and why should we care, unless she made any public claims on the subject. She went to a comprehensive school before she went to the Brit school. And anyway, as I keep saying, she's playing parts in her songs.
Do we know that her record company were sinisterly "involved" in her songwriting? And can record companies not get involved in the creative process? Blur were sent away by Food to come up with some singles for Modern Life Is Rubbish. What's that if not record company "involvement"? (They were right, too. It's their best album.)
Am I celebrating a product rather than an artist? Am I really? I detect true artistry in this album. It reminds me of the stupid furore around Arctic Monkeys when it was rumoured that somebody else had written Alex Turner's lyrics for him, because he was only 19.
Never mind class, there is rock and indie snobbery at work here. Some of the greatest pop records of all time were written by teams of writers employed, battery-style, to write songs by the record company. The artistry came in the way they were sung by, say, the Supremes, or the Temptations, or Elvis Presley, or Frank Sinatra. This does not devalue them as songs.
I like the sound and style of Kate Nash. I'm quite excited by how much of a dialogue her existence has inspired.
It's Earl Brutus, by the way.
(And no, I did not watch the Dawkins programme, nor will I watch the second one. I don't mind arguing about pop music, but I'm steering clear of science versus homeopathy this time.)
I'm with you on class - it's irrelevant.
I agree and disagree on other points...
First off, saying to a band 'go and write some singles' is fine. Of course it is. It means 'write something melodic we can sell'.
That's in any bands remit when they sign a record contract. But they still sit and write the thing themselves. With Nash and Allen I think the role of the producer is understated to an amazing degree. We can tell from the shoddy lyrics to LDN that Allen is clearly no great innovator, one can presume that applies to her musical ability also.
When you talk of teams of writers and slick products working and working well, you rightly point to a different era. The problem is that these days we've experienced rock and roll written by kids for kids as our parents and grandparents hadn't, back in the day.
That means we can sniff a 'product' a mile off, and since boybands became big and we came to know the process inside out, it can't do anything other than have a negative effect on the music. It hasn't come from someone's heart, fury or sadness. It's been written to generate cash. Surely that's a horrible thought?
This is just pop (which in and of itself is a great thing) but marketed as something with meaning.
Arguing about music is great, I agree. But 'indie snobbery' is too easy a term to chuck about - some great bands make the charts, whereas some rubbish bands are sold so cynically that they cruise there without any artisty or merit.
No offence meant in any of this, I just love the music banter.
Which one are you in Crash Ambers Party then, Chris? I'm looking at the photograph on MySpace now. Or are you their evil manager? (And shouldn't there be an apostrophe in Amber's?)
There should be an apostrophe, and there is in the name we put on posters, cd's etc, but sadly MySpace doesn't like them, and messes up every time you put one in.
I'm the bass player, with the thick glasses, bad teeth and stupid hair!
Speaking of production and why 'Caroline's a Victim' isn't on the album, maybe it's to do with the fact that the track is entirely composed of preset beats on the Mac program Garageband.
I actually quite liked 'C's a V' until I made it myself in 20 minutes!
Yes, Ian, but she did it first. (I've downloaded it now, by the way, and I if were her, or Fiction records, I'd have put it on.)
Chris - should we address you as Biggles now then? (The MySpace tracks had spirit, by the way.)
Swines: I don't think it's irrelevant to bring up the golden age of Motown. The songs were written by songwriting geniuses, but usually not by, or even necessarily for, the artist, and yet, the definitive versions are immortal pop records. I'm not even saying that Foundations by Kate Nash will survive 40 years like Baby Love has. It may not. But we can't use a different set of rules to judge artists of today (with help from record companies) with yesteryear (actual manufacture). By bringing the Olden Days into play, I was merely pointing up the snobbery attached to how a record is made, and who made it. I'd say that 50 per cent of the antipathy towards Nash is based on who she is, how she got here, what she speaks like in real life etc. I'd not even read a single article about her when I first heard Foundations (although I believe the blurb to a Guardian piece, which I didn't read, referred to her as the new Lily Allen, so that must have sunk in). I heard the song and loved it. I have heard the album, and I love that too. If it turned out that Alex Turner's lyrics were written by another person, the songs would still excite and impress me. I'm aiming for a position of music apprecitation beyond snobbery. It's difficult, but I'm having a go.
You talk of sniffing a product. Name a record you like that isn't a product. They're all products. Baby Love was written to "generate cash" and yet, it was sung with sadness, fury etc. How do we come to the conclusion that Kate Nash is doing it for the money and has no passion? Because you don't like her?
By "indie snobbery" I really mean "rock snobbery" which is based on a now outdated idea that if a band write a song it is better than a pop record written by some songwriters and sung by someone else. (Which, lest we forget, doesn't describe Kate Nash anyway.) Indie snobbery would be decrying a major label for the simple fact that it is a major label. I say: we quibble over economics.
Song: good. Song: not good. (As a former music journalist, I would have struggled to reduce criticism to this primal level, but I am older now and beyong caring about what label a band are on.)
Oh, and you find the lyrics to LDN shoddy, so you assume Lily Allen can't have a way with tunes. Why? Elton John didn't write any of his lyrics but he could, in his best days, carry a tune.
I think you've identified the problem - in that I do have something of a problem with how the music is created.
Perhaps I'm repeating myself but the fact that a record company plays a major part in the songwriting process in addition to the fact that these artists come from nowhere (were they signed immediately, on the strength of a demo? Auditioned? How did they get there?) is insulting to artists who have slaved away for years.
It's a moral principle. I hate it that people are born into certain positions. It's jobs for the boys and nothing else. The stage school element gives these acts such a lift, such a headstart that the success isn't actually earned.
It's not snobbery. If anything, it's inverse snobbery!
I actually admire the fact that you can like music for what it is - a great melody, lovely bassline etc... Personally I can't help but see beyond the fact that it's negated by how it was produced.
Pre-90s music, I think, is hard to add to the argument because nostalgia blurs anything that isn't immediately contemporary. Borderline by Madonna is a work of genius, in retrospect. At the time I would probably have found it repulsive. Good tune or not, it was fabricated by money guzzlers to match the mood of the time, to sell to kids. Perhaps it's missplaced romanticism that makes me feel this way but I think it's true to say that art that's made to sell is usually less valuable than art that's simply made, with no thought of audience.
The lyrics to LDN are shoddy, there's no two ways about it!
Biggles is my nickname, and has been since I was 7 years old!
I have no idea why I was called this, but everyone knows me as it now...
I wish it was a better one, but that's life.
I agree with you on the "Song: good. Song: not good" scale, but I think there is an element of truth to the 'product' tag.
Baby Love and records of that ilk were certainly products, but have now become such a part of our collective consciousness that we forget that. The difference is that the majority of us weren't around when these 'classics' were released. I'm sure there were similar debates at the time.
Nowadays our cynical nature makes us wary of new artists, especially when they are similar to what has only recently gone before.
It seems sometimes that pop has indeed eaten itself, and we're being short changed. We should ideally judge these things after ten years, to see if they still hold up.
Inversely to Swinesheads last post, I personally like the fact that I can have a strong dislike for music, for no real reason other than I don't like the song. I detest the Red Hot Chili Peppers songs, for example, even though they're undoubtedly talented musicians.
Thanks for the 'spirit' comment, it's good to have our first review from a professional critic, although I think might be being generous!
Sorry, I meant I think you might be being generous, not that I'm being generous...
According to something I saw on telly (so it must be true) Lily Allen is the lyricist in a writing partnership. When I first heard her I was seriously impressed - a natural performer and word and tunesmith? Obviously not impossible, and a young woman is perhaps more likely to be capable of it than a young bloke, but that kind of talent is extremely rare and it made a bit more sense when I heard she had a writing partner. Of course I could be wrong, and who knows what she'll be capable of in the future.
I think some of the antipathy in these cases is a reaction to hype and marketing in general. I was going to say this about Jamie Oliver, that personally I like him - he genuinely wants to help people I think - but... does he really come up with his own recipes? Most tv chefs buy them from professional recipe inventors. It can niggle a competitive person when someone's talents are clearly exaggerated. The thing that niggles me is that it isn't necessary - even if Lily Allen doesn't write her tunes or Jamie Oliver his recipes, they're still talents. No need for pretence.
Like others I've read Andy Gill's review and it's extremely harsh, comparing Kate Nash unfavourably with Lily Allen whom he doesn't seem to like either. 'Compared to her, Allen seems a veritable multi-faceted talent able to sing and write a proper song.' If, as Dave suggests, Nash's work comes over as more of a solo effort, how pointless is comparing their songwriting? How about comparing it to that of another songwriter of her age? Can you think of any?
Simon B
Can I just say the the new Girls Aloud song 'Sexy! No No No...' is amazing.
I can't let this discussion end with some wag (in the actual sense of the word) championing Girls Aloud. it wouldn't be right. They are downright evil.
Just back after four days of broadband outage. Been watching telly instead and I'd like to say, c'mon Mr Swines and all, lighten up - have you seen that Beyonce video for Green Light? It'll change your life man.
Also, Girls Aloud just ROCK the charts - and I think you all know that in your secret hearts.
But my point is, that most "works of art", great or not, are done for commission, with every thought for the audience, not for 'art's sake'.
From the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel down to "Low" by David Bowie (done to make just enough money but mainly to alienate his record company - but a money motive nonetheless).
I think it's hard to ignore the economics of record making and 'art' in general and I don't really believe those artists who say that their potential audience and financial success is irrelevant to them.
Not unless they are (a) declared amateurs, (b) rubbish and unlikely to attract any support at all or (c) financially secure from either established success or other sources, in which case they might, but do not have to have, (a) and (b) tendencies as well.
There are welcome exceptions of course but for every Peter Gabriel there are ten Oasis's.
AnotherAnon
It's not a question of lightening up really. Beyonce and Girls Aloud are capable of releasing great pop singles. I've nothing against pop. I quite like Beyonce for her many musical and physical attributes. She's certainly got a decent voice unlike some Brit artists I could mentioned.
However, I do have a problem with something that's purely a commercial package being improperly labelled as something with meaning or worth.
Yes, Girls Aloud are great for kids to dance about to at parties and I'm sure her tunes are a hit at the school disco but beyond that, they're nothing more than jingles in an advert for the album product.
The way the Brats has turned into the Brits, with pretty much the same roster, artist for artist, demonstrates that commerce eating into alternative music has been achieved to the point that there's nothing left. Kate Nash and Lily Allen have the look of artists, they've been stylised to such an extent that they've achieved the image, but behind that there's nothing. The music is vacuous.
In ten years time I guess we'll see who's right, and it might be you lot. But I suspect that the test of time will cause more embarassment for those being sold short with the like of Nash, Allen, The Kooks, Razorlight and all other major label mainstream indie-lite crap.
So many points made, so many views - music is great isn't it?
So many of these comments seem to merge the music with the image. I know that's always been done to a certain extent but when it's done we should be aware of what it is we're doing. I don't know very much about Lily Allen - I read a small article about her just after the first single came out but nothing since, I rarely see pop videos and I don't think I've ever seen one of hers but I like her album and whatever it's weaknesses LDN seems to conjure up the spirit of London on a sunny day when it's a great place to be - the Beach Boys lyrics are hardly Shakespearian but they are still evocative, and you could argue that they were "playing a part" too as they weren't surfers.
I can't agree that it's a fallow period for music in fact I think it's the opposite, the problem, if there is one seems to be a lack of focus. The charts are not the place to look as they are, probably more so than ever, the reflection of the lowest common denominator and the biggest marketing budget.
2007 has so far seen the release of some albums that will be listened to and enjoyed well into the future most of which have not troubled the charts. My concern is that, given the diversity of distribution conduits that I will never actually hear what I would consider the best album (or single) of the year. So far it has Nick Lowe, The Fountains of Wayne and Little Man Tate to beat none of which troubled the charts. If the preview tracks on MySpace are anything to go by the new Brendan Benson CD promises to be a return to form after the apparently stifling democracy of The Raconteurs and the latest New Pornographers CD is just around the corner, neither of which are likely to trouble the charts.
I can use Nick Lowe as a shining example of it not mattering who writes the songs. His new CD is as good as his last 3 or 4 and yet again it contains a mixture of self penned songs and obscure songs from others - I could pick out 3 or 4 songs that are clearly archetypal Nick Lowe but as for the rest I couldn't tell which are covers and which are not and it simply doesn't matter.
The most important thing is the end result. There's no point in writing a great song if nobody interprets it successfully. People used to criticise many punk bands because the band members couldn't play their instruments but it didn't matter if the end result was a Ramones album did it?
I think that we would all enjoy music much more if we stopped reading about it, stopped watching videos and just listened. Now, where is that new issue of Uncut......
What I don't understand is that if Kate Nash's album is so good why did the record company rush its release to cash in on the success of Foundations? Surely if it's that good it'll stand up on the original release date planned for after the second single. Or is the second single a bit guff?
kate nash. MY GOD.
its the sound of bridget jones having her period.
honestly
1.album release date
capitalising on the summer lull in sales (Coldplay scored a number 1 debut album during the same period all those years ago)
2. Andy Gill
I've never placed much store by his reviews. Anyone remember his review of 'Automatic For The People' where he was seriously advocating the use of Daniel Lanois as producer? (missing the point, somewhat, given that REM, back then, at least, did things their way).
"The sound of bridget jones having her period" - well, that's raised the tone of the debate, hasn't it? (A good, satirical impression of someone who's frightened of women, though.)
Back to the Swineshead angle: you've done it again, sir - equating "worth" with not being "a commercial package". Commercial packages can have worth. You've also revealed your old-before-your-time ageism once again, in saying that Girls Aloud and Beyonce are OK for "kids to dance about to at parties." Who are these kids? Under 12s? How come I like Girls Aloud? Am I pretending to like them to impress somebody? Who would I need to impress on this score? The kids?
Also, let's get over this snobbery surrounding singles. Yes, they're adverts for albums - every rock band, indie or otherwise, who's signed to any record label, big or small, is in the same game as Girls Aloud re: singles. Or why do our beloved indie bands keep re-releasing their singles? To have a bigger hit. To sell more albums. You've really got to examine why you despise pop music so much (and don't deny it - you do). Is it because with rock music its commerical designs are more successfully disguised? And why does it have to be pop versus rock anyway? Some of the best singles artists are both rock and pop, and all the richer for it. (Madness, the Kinks, Blur, the Cure etc.)
You're right that the Brats have turned into the Brits, and that is, indeed, bad for alternative music, in that the alternative has become the mainstream, just like alternative comedy in the 90s (although it's more about the market forces that influence the NME in a beleagured magazine market). However, to say, boldly, that there's no substance to Kate Nash beyond her image rather suggests that I've been taken in by her image. And yet, I am 42 years old and quite sensible, and unlikely to be enjoying a record for its image at this stage in my life. If I cared a toss for how a band come across in interviews or what they looked like, I wouldn't like the music of Arctic Monkeys.
David Bowie is one of the greatest and most innovative artists to have ever emerged from Britain, I'd say, and yet he has always been about image as well as art, about hit singles as much as being about more challenging albums. It can be done. Luckily for him, there was no such thing as "indie" when he enjoyed his first flush of success, and thus no indie snobbery to blight him.
I agree with JW - the less we concerned ourselves with what's written in the press about the artist, the freer we'd be to enjoy the music.
"Also, let's get over this snobbery surrounding singles. Yes, they're adverts for albums - every rock band, indie or otherwise, who's signed to any record label, big or small, is in the same game...."
Has anyone told Ash about this?!
This is like pub banter online, the internet is ace.
I'm not old before my time in any sense! I think you need to examine why you like Girls Aloud and then share the reasons. Is it really the quality of the music their producers produce? They're not particularly good singers, so it's not their individual ability, so I'm assuming it's the generic Europop trash tunes they release.
Maybe you like it ironically as you're an adult? I am completely confused as to how it can be enjoyed by a right-thinking grown up. Is it because it's catchy? So's chicken pox, and I don't fancy a dose.
Remember where they came from. Pop Stars: The Rivals. I can't appreciate anything that comes from that stable. It's a political decision in one sense, but mainly it's because their music leaves me numb.
You use examples of truly original artists to justify Nash, which isn't fair to those artists. Bowie played with image, yes, but he was backed up with amazing, original recordings the like of which hadn't been heard before. And the lyrics were incredible. Nash and Allen's music is so copyist you may as well listen to the original. The same goes for Oasis. The rush of Liam G's vocals made Cigarette's & Alcohol bearable and enjoyable, but beyond that they blighted their own career with unoriginal poop.
Of course, it's a question of taste, but I'm starting to worry that perhaps a lack of adventure is playing a part here. Maybe the likes of the (present day) NME and Q Magazine should be avoided in favour of Plan B magazine, Pitchforkmedia and Drowned in Sound? Places where you won't read the same reviews of the same rubbish over and over again.
I'm not anti-chart music, but songs have to get there on merit, for me, rather than strongly pitched selling techniques. You have to admit Nash is over-promoted. Not only in the music mags - she's on every other page of the broadsheets and in the pages of Heat and all those other awful rags. The promo is unavoidable.
Also, I never endorsed any rock v pop fight-off. Pop has its place. It's worth having a little dance to it. It makes people fleetingly cheerful when heard on the radio. I just don't think it's wise for anyone with a brain to fall in love with trash. Unless it's trashy 80s horror films. Then it's ok.
*negates own argument*
Brill / Motown made records that had a weight of emotional behind them and sounded good. Xenomania make pop records that usually sound fantastic to anyone's ears and while the lyrics aren't Dylanesque it really doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things. It matter's less where Girls Aloud came from, it's all about the songs for me. It doesn't matter if the five members are all pseudo-porn FHM pin-ups from a reality TV show.
I do strongly disagree with the pop music is trash comment. Pre-'65 Beatles, Madness, Blondie, Off The Wall, I could go on but these records are not trash.
A great deal of the writers at Pitchfork have a great deal of time for Pop music and Girls Aloud especially.
Mothers of invention, that was exactly what I was trying to say. When I finished my a-levels and before that GCSE's the thing to do would be Ibiza / Ayia Napa. Now it's more likely with the commercialisation of festivals that those celebrating today are off to Reading / Leeds next weekend to celebrate. Another point of note is the way that record buying of NME fodder is no longer a mainly male dominated market, those girls that bought Spice Girl records or Busted are out there buying Razorlight and Snow Patrol, I might be wrong but the likes of Coldplay and Travis were referred to as 'Mortgage-Rock' at the turn of the central, certainly not the kind of thing a nineteen year old girl in a polka dot dress would by nowadays. Secondly the record industry cashed in the Ibiza, A Napa etc of the world with compilation albums and iTunes and to a lesser extent the rockier compilations that were big pre iTunes are another symptom of the way that music is listened to buy a lot of people nowadays. This goes back to my earlier point about many artists no longer seeming to craft an album when four or five singles is more than enought to sustain it. The two best examples of this are from 2004, Scissor Sister's and The Killer's album, both have a handful of great songs and a few real, real bad ones. I'm willing to bet that if you checked out the tracklists on Last.fm you'd see a massive diffference between plays of the singles and the other tracks from people that have the entire album (This would exclude the people who've grabbed a couple of songs)
I never said 'pop music is trash'!
I said a lot of it is. Not all!
That'd be like saying anything popular is rubbish, which IS indie snobbery. But lots of things enter the mainstream that come from a place with integrity. Girls Aloud don't, and they sound rubbish for it, to my ears.
Kate Nash didn't enter the mainstream after working on her own terms, she was sold directly to the mainstream. I didn't notice her working any circuit, so where has she come from?
These comments are way too long, I'll read them later. Kate Nash grinds on me, the way rich kids did in high school - the ones that could afford to buy cool clothes, but that still didn't make them cool. Stylistically, she belongs in the same category as Jamie T, but artistically, she remains with Tone Loc and The Paddingtons - presumably conceived before the music was ever put together. Like Avril Lavigne or the Pet Shop Boys, but without any depth of artisanship.
Woop-de-doop! What a lot of opinionated bastards we all are. Ain't it great?
Vagina Sphincter rude in a cowshed? Shurely not? She seems so sweet and lovely in the interviews I've seen.
And like the man JW said up above, it's a travesty when diet-7UP music like this bothers the charts and the excellent recent Fountains Of Wayne singles barely register.
But hey, that's show-business.
Maybe I'll give the girl more of a chance but after buying the wife Siobahn Donaghy and Amy McDonald CD's for her birthday, the depth of female talent out there is probably at an all-time high, and shouldn't be wasted on superficial tripe like the Nashster.
Domboy - hate to say it as I'm no fan, but Nash did plod about the indie club scene for several months before hitting the mainstream.
'Several months' doesn't sound like long does it, but it doesn't take long nowadays for any band/performer to be plucked by a major (or at least a big indie) label and sent off to the charts and the NME cover.
The turnover from nobody to cover star is remarkably quick such is the race to discover the new cool thing before everyone else, such is the speed that a 'scene' is created and dismissed.
hi ians, I have no doubt Kate Nash didn't just show up and get lucky, I'm sure she worked very hard on her craft and wouldn't be suprised if she'd been playing for years. I just think it all sounds calculated, like people who paint scenes of cottages next to streams over and over again and call it art. It isn't, it's decorative, soulless, and offends the senses. (I'll happily start an argument to see this blog's comments rise even higher - 58 comments is way too cool!)
Kate Nash turns out to be as controversial, in terms of traffic on this blog, as Richard Dawkins and Gillian McKeith, Who'd have thought it?
And, Dom, you may not hear soul in Nash's work, but I do. Difference of opinion, there. Maybe soul is in the ear of the beholder. Also, weren't the Beatles "calculated"? They had a manager who shaped their image and kicked out their drummer.
Sure, Andrew, I think anything that exists in the public arena has a greater or lesser degree of calculation and commercialism to it (except, perhaps, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, he he), and I really have no problem with manufactured pop music, I just feel in this case I'm too aware that all my buttons are being pushed. I think people like the Pet Shop Boys and David Bowie do the exactly same thing, but I feel Kate Nash has crossed some kind of line where it becomes a product that could have been given to someone else with exactly the same result.
Well, I disagree. She wrote the lyrics. She wrote the songs. They're her songs. Whether she calculated that they'd push any buttons or not, I actually truly don't care. I like the sound of the songs. So that's why I like her, and you don't. You don't like the sound of the songs, and you suspect she's manipulating you (and me). Fair enough. I think this is where we came in, but it's been bracing. It really has.
You lot don't like her because she's a woman Worse, a young woman.
(I'm only busting your balls. It's Friday. I'm going home. You'll post al weekend and I won't see those posts until Monday. It's a very exciting part of my week, without broadband at home. Have a good one.)
I like young women!
I like you too, who knows, maybe I will like Kate Nash eventually too.
Post a Comment
<< Home