Lust, Lust, Lust

About a year ago a process that I believe is technically called "getting old and uncool" began to take hold and I fell hopelessly behind the curve on music matters. I kept listening to music but it was, you know, the same music I'd heard before. But for whatever reason I was inspired to download the Raveonettes' Lust, Lust, Lust and it's good.

So good, in fact, that perhaps I'll be awakened from my dogmatic slumbers and start paying attention again to what the cool kids are listening to. Because everyone knows the cool kids are always right.

Comments

The moment Yglesias starts doing what the cool kids are doing, what they are doing ceases to be cool.

Call it Yglesias' Law.

Posted by Eric Blair | March 25, 2008 12:29 PM

The cool kids listen to The Jesus & Mary Chain.

Posted by Sam | March 25, 2008 12:31 PM

correction: The cool kids listen to The Jesus & Mary Chain on vinyl

Posted by bjd | March 25, 2008 12:35 PM

"Because everyone knows the cool kids are always right."

Awwww, somebody's still bitter about the lunch table.

Posted by moff | March 25, 2008 12:35 PM

Indeed, Sam's spot on.

From 'Psychocandy' to 'Automatic' to 'Whip It On' to 'Lust Lust Lust' is a sad tale of utter decline.

Still, you have to envy Matt. One day he's going to discover 20th century music by American black people and, geesh, is he in for a treat!

Posted by Ghost of Ahmet Ertegun | March 25, 2008 12:44 PM

So are you now inspired to right A Critique of Pure Three-Chord Retro Guitar Rock or something? I certainly felt that way after Pretty in Black, which was, frankly, a bit pants.

Posted by ANM | March 25, 2008 12:47 PM

Seeing Yeasayer play at a festival after being put off by how quickly and seemingly perfunctorily the buzz around had built up I was reminded that, in fact, the cool kids are always right. Yeasayer is worth a listen.

Posted by Kriston | March 25, 2008 12:49 PM

They're playing the Black Cat next Saturday. They usually put on a great show.

And Pretty in Black was a disaster. Such a terrible album. So glad to see them return to form.

Posted by Rusty | March 25, 2008 12:54 PM

Just listen to WFMU or ResonanceFM on occasion, and you'll stay sharp as a laser. WFMU is probably more accessible, particular Liz Berg's program (9-noon monday), Trouble's This Is the Modern World (9-noon thurs) or even Station Manager Ken's show (9-noon wed).

East Village Radio can be a useful resource, since their shows are available for download, not just streaming.

http://www.wfmu.org/
http://www.resonancefm.com/

Posted by seanh | March 25, 2008 1:01 PM

I kept listening to music but it was, you know, the same music I'd heard before.

i did a 100 Favorite Records list in 2006. when it was all done, i was bummed to see that more than 80% of the records i listed came out between 1969 and 1994. it's probably no coincidence that i graduated college in '93.

Posted by cleek | March 25, 2008 1:01 PM

It will take another 10-15 years to figure out what the cool kids were right about and what they were wrong about. My guess is that probably about 1/3 of the bands they think are good will still sound good in after 10-15 years have passed.

Posted by blah | March 25, 2008 1:04 PM

Hillary's "cool"!! THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HLLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 25, 2008 1:11 PM

About a year ago a process that I believe is technically called "getting old and uncool"

Dude, I'm two years older than you and I listen to way more new music than you do. The Raveonettes are hardly cutting edge.

Posted by Christmas | March 25, 2008 1:11 PM

The allmusic.com editor's choice section does a pretty good job of distilling what's good in the past 3 months. It's worth a read if you want to be somewhat up on new music, without being an indie-rock nerd. The new Bob Mould album is quite good, for instance, I'm glad to know that without having to spend the same amount of time reading about music, as I spend reading about politics.

Posted by Stephen Bank | March 25, 2008 1:14 PM

I'm sure this will invite many snarky posts, but I'll be sincere. The people you think are the cool kids - indie posers at Ivy League universities - are not the cool kids - they are the high school geeks trying to carve out a niche where they can pretend to be cool. The truly cool kids have been listening to very uncool music like (shudder) Dave Matthews because the truly cool kids don't try to impress people with their eclectic musical taste. Or they listen to really eclectic things like Mongolian folk music, but not to impress people, but simply because they've spent a year studying in a Mongolian village learning to play an obscure instrument. (I know someone like this). I like bands like Spoon, Of Montreal, Arcade Fire, etc. But they're not really cool, they're a post high-school equivalent of being in drama club. Matt, you have a great blog but your musical taste is, and has always been, really pretty mediocre, hate to break it to you.

Posted by vanya | March 25, 2008 1:15 PM

Are the cool kids listening to the Raveonettes? I listened to LustX3 and found it to be nothing more than a servicable JAMC knock-off. They're a fun band, though. I had some drinks (ok, a lot or drinks) with them after a Strokes show they opened in StL in 03 or 04. The tall one, I forget his name, had an odd fascination with white rum shots. That fascination eventually did him in. A couple hours after the show he slumped over the table, not to be heard from again.

PS Yeasayer is great.

Posted by lh | March 25, 2008 1:16 PM

Matt, you're so out of touch. I can help you regain hipsterness.

Sincerely,

Pitchfork

Posted by Brent | March 25, 2008 1:30 PM

Seriously, Matt, Kant has to have had the uncoolest taste in music of anyone in history.

Posted by David Yaseen | March 25, 2008 1:31 PM

I love the Raveonettes. I think there's something sort of David Lynchian about their music.

Posted by Pat | March 25, 2008 1:32 PM

Indeed, Vanya, cool kids today sense that rock is in horrific decline and have moved on to other things. Many play Mozart in small chamber ensembles, while others are doing very interesting work with Internet porn.

Me and my friends (some from Mongolian villages, but not all) try to straddle the two. Not that we have any pretense to being "cool," mind you.

Posted by The Uriankahi Quartet and fetish site | March 25, 2008 1:33 PM

Indeed, Vanya, cool kids today sense that rock is in horrific decline and have moved on to other things. Many play Mozart in small chamber ensembles, while others are doing very interesting work with Internet porn.

Me and my friends (some from Mongolian villages, but not all) try to straddle the two. Not that we have any pretense to being "cool," mind you.

Posted by The Uriankahi Quartet and fetish site | March 25, 2008 1:33 PM

The beauty of getting old and uncool is you don't have to worry about it. You can listen to what you feel like listening to without worrying about what the kids are into. It's very liberating and a real time saver.

Posted by Gus | March 25, 2008 1:34 PM

It was 1992, Spring, if I recall, and I was parking outside the building then used as the federal courthouse in White Plains. Richard Neer was hosting his show on WNEW 102.7 FM, and remarked that that day was the 25th anniversary of the release of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." (The Beatles, you may remember them --McCartney's former sidemen.) I stopped the car almost in the middle of the street and began to count back, trying to figure out what music was 25 years old when I was listening to "Sgt. Pepper." Glenn Miller, which I had probably played more recently than I had played the Beatles. I knew then that I would never, ever, be cool again. Thanks for the reminder, Matt.

Posted by CJColucci | March 25, 2008 1:40 PM

Lizz Wright.

Just sayin'.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 25, 2008 1:41 PM

My gf picked up that Raveonettes album and it's perfectly fine. The MGMT album I bought the other week, however, is f'n amazing.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 25, 2008 1:51 PM

Besides being a constant embarrassment, Pitchfork exemplifies indie rock as the folk music of privileged whiney white kids. The reviewers have no historic knowledge and lack the technical ability to actually, you know, discuss music.

Rush Limbaugh on the science behind global warming, Pitchfork writers on the greatness of LCD Soundsytem -- sadly analogous. Ignorant blowhards. Both catering to the prejudices of an energized provincial audience too dumb to know better.

Posted by Ahmet (ghost of) | March 25, 2008 1:54 PM

Funny, I come at this from the opposite side -- I'm an aging 80s-indie rock guy who started listening to the Raveonettes because they reminded me of JAMC (though without the leaden 80s Britrock drumbeat that was their sole failing). Didn't realize it made me cool too! I thought I'd never buy another album after their first one, since 8 of their songs seemed to be just the right amount, but they've recalibrated their sound just a bit on every album to get me interested enough. By the way, unlike some others, I love "Pretty in Black," good melodies with a little flavor of Phil Spector girl groups. That's the element that reminds me, as Pat aptly mentioned, of David Lynch movies.

Posted by Chilly | March 25, 2008 1:55 PM

I have mixed opinions about what the "cool kids" think about music. On the one hand, I graduated from college in 1988 and a lot of my favorite music was released before, say, 1992. For instance, my ears perked up when Stephen Bank mentioned the new Bob Mould (although I haven't liked much he's done since the Sugar days).

But I still like to find new music. Keeping an eye on the cool kids is one strategy. It's also one thing blog comments are good for from time to time.

On the other hand, the nice thing about old age is that I don't have to give a damn about what the cool kids think. My ipod is chock full of embarassments these days.

Posted by mwg | March 25, 2008 1:57 PM

Chilly above inadvertently hits on what really characterizes "getting old and uncool" -- you recognize that the "new" stuff the cool kids like is really the same as the old stuff you liked when you were young -- only the names have changed.

Posted by David A | March 25, 2008 2:02 PM

"Besides being a constant embarrassment, Pitchfork exemplifies indie rock as the folk music of privileged whiney white kids. The reviewers have no historic knowledge and lack the technical ability to actually, you know, discuss music.

Rush Limbaugh on the science behind global warming, Pitchfork writers on the greatness of LCD Soundsytem -- sadly analogous. Ignorant blowhards. Both catering to the prejudices of an energized provincial audience too dumb to know better."

You can make a great argument about Pfork not discussing music, but the history thing doesn't hold water. To their detriment, they spend an inordinate amount of word space discussing where every album fits into some historic pattern. Plus, for many, for better and worse, music has many ramifications beyond, well, music. Music dictates fashion and, of course, what's cool.

And also, the knock on LCD Soundsystem is totally off base. James Murphy is a god.

Posted by lh | March 25, 2008 2:06 PM

I agree with Ahmet - pitchfork is a turd coded in ones and zeros. I hate that site. Much of the writing comes off as sour grapes that an English degree couldn't land the writer a better job and, when they wander off and actually start talking about the music, it's usually so obtuse that I wonder why I even bothered to look beyond the numerical rating (which is usually less than charitable unless it's some Sufjan Stevens-type nonsense).

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 25, 2008 2:12 PM

I listened to LustX3 and found it to be nothing more than a servicable JAMC knock-off.

Which would put it ahead of the JAMC's last couple of albums.

Posted by Anderson | March 25, 2008 2:28 PM

"I listened to LustX3 and found it to be nothing more than a servicable JAMC knock-off.

Which would put it ahead of the JAMC's last couple of albums."

Good point. JAMC seems to be a prime example of the law of diminishing returns.

Posted by lh | March 25, 2008 2:35 PM

If it sounds good, it is good.
Who needs cool when there is Bach?
Uncool for over 250 years.

Posted by catclub | March 25, 2008 2:42 PM

For the past decade and a half, the "new, cool" stuff has all sounded the same to me. Same drum/bass/guitar/vocal approach ad nauseum, with a minor tweak to some element or other.

Maybe I'm just too old to get it, but my main impression is that at some point popular music fell into a highly conventionalized rut and these days no one even has a concept of trying to do anything interesting with it.

Posted by jimBOB | March 25, 2008 3:25 PM

If it sounds good, it is good.

Or, to put it another way, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi."

Posted by James Gary | March 25, 2008 3:40 PM

Man, the "all sounds the same" argument seems really weak to me. I've only been around for 24 years so I can't comment on much before that, but I can definitely tell a difference between The Shins and Mogwai.

Posted by Brent | March 25, 2008 3:41 PM

And Pretty in Black was a disaster. Such a terrible album. So glad to see them return to form.

I don't know that I'd call it a disaster. It had some good stuff on it. Twilight and You Say You Lie are good songs. It was a little indulgent, but serviceable. I like the new one.

Fortunately I live in an area that pretty much every band hits on tour. I first saw them only because I really wanted to see Autolux, who were actually pretty disappointing in concert (even the Peels were more entertaining). I wasn't sold on the Raveonettes at that time, but the live show really blew me away. That wall of buzz style really plays differently live than on a record. Take Noisy Summer, for example. There's just a totally different feeling when you're completely enveloped by the feedback. It's one of my favorite songs now just because it brings back memories of how good it was the last time I saw them (last October, I think - had to eat my ticket to their show last week because of other plans, unfortunately, but still made it out to see X the next night).

Posted by Seitz | March 25, 2008 3:42 PM

You know what's not cool? Worrying about whether the music you listen to is cool.

Posted by too many steves | March 25, 2008 3:44 PM

Maybe I'm just too old to get it, but my main impression is that at some point popular music fell into a highly conventionalized rut and these days no one even has a concept of trying to do anything interesting with it.

Clare and the Reasons

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 25, 2008 3:47 PM

For the past decade and a half, the "new, cool" stuff has all sounded the same to me. Same drum/bass/guitar/vocal approach ad nauseum, with a minor tweak to some element or other.

I think it's a question of how much you want to delve into something. I mean, all that emo stuff sounds the same to me. I can't tell any of those bands apart. But I notice some pretty wide variation in the stuff that I listen to. Even broken down by sub-genre. I don't think the Stone Roses sound very much like Oasis, and I don't think Echobelly sound very much like Pulp, but I could definitely see someone saying "all that Brit-pop crap sounds the same".

Posted by Seitz | March 25, 2008 3:53 PM

I'm not particularly inclined to think that most new music "all sounds the same," but what chaps my ass is that a lot of bands seem to get popular with a sound that is essentially that of another lesser known act from 20 years ago. Like Interpol? The Chameleons were a billion times better. Franz Ferdinand? Gang of Four nailed it the first time. The Editors? Yeah, more of the same. Not that I blame the bands, mind you - I've written music in groups and it's always fun when you come up with something that reminds you of you idols. I guess I just wish the source bands were getting more recognition.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 25, 2008 4:01 PM

Man, the "all sounds the same" argument seems really weak to me. I've only been around for 24 years

After you've been around another 24 you may be saying the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if people a couple of decades ahead of me said the same thing about my favorite stuff. In fact I'm pretty sure they did.

Posted by jimBOB | March 25, 2008 4:05 PM

When I first heard Interpol (whom I like), the first thing I thought of was early Echo and the Bunnymen, though I guess Joy Division tends to be the routine comparison. Also Television somewhat. The beginning of Obstacle 1 is a pretty direct "rip-off/homage" of/to Marquee Moon.

Posted by Seitz | March 25, 2008 4:22 PM

Seitz, yeah, well, I actually like Interpol, at least the first album, quite a bit and I don't begrudge their sounding like other bands that I also happen to like. I can hear the Echo in there and I know people think he really sounds like Ian Curtis - I tend to believe that his voice is very similar to Patrick Fitzgerald from Kitchens of Distinction - but I'll always be a little sore that Interpol caught a wave that should have belonged to The Chameleons, Comsat Angels, the Sound, Modern Eon, et. al. I'm probably too much of a nerd/obsessive about music, though.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 25, 2008 4:31 PM

After you've been around another 24 you may be saying the same thing.

And then maybe I'll have an idea of how singularly subjective my opinion is.

In any case, I'm still unclear exactly what you were referring to with popular music. I wouldn't normally pool that into the same category with what's typically considered new, cool stuff. To me, those are almost inherently partitioned categories. This is an important distinction because I think you do find a ton more variety and "interesting" stuff outside the realm of popular music.

Posted by Brent | March 25, 2008 4:47 PM

I probably have a more expansive meaning in mind with "popular music." Essentially I'm thinking of non-classical stuff done on the commercial market. This would encompass everything from rap to rave to the superannuated art-rockers I generally favor.

I'll concede at the outset that my original statement was a massive overgeneralization. Even back when I was in the target demographic I rarely paid much attention to the stuff commonly given airplay, so my perspective may be warped.

Posted by jimBOB | March 25, 2008 5:32 PM

Chilly above inadvertently hits on what really characterizes "getting old and uncool" -- you recognize that the "new" stuff the cool kids like is really the same as the old stuff you liked when you were young -- only the names have changed.

Posted by David A

Oh, definitely. I've always thought the road to old fogeydom isn't "you kids turn off that dadburned racket," it's "eh, Zeppelin did the same thing way better."

Posted by Chilly | March 25, 2008 5:49 PM

I know exactly what you mean. And you know how you solve the problem? Take a few days off and go to South By South West in Austin, TX next spring. I saw the Ravonettes (and literally 35-40 other incredible up and coming bands) in 4 days without spending a penny.

South By has the reputation of being an industry gig, but it is actually incredibly accessible. And Austin really lives up the hype.

Posted by Ben | March 25, 2008 10:22 PM

Hey Matt,

If you are looking for hip new music, may I strongly suggest my friends, The Airborne Toxic Event.

They kicked ass at SXSW.

Posted by Samba00 | March 25, 2008 11:40 PM

Don't know if it's as "cool" as The Raveonettes but I prefer The Kills - Midnight Boom. Also would recommend Tall Firs - Too Old To Die Young.

Posted by Undecided | March 26, 2008 12:18 AM

The cool kids listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYBxVtqrAEA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bMDVlzXN24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6QhQkx5-o

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 3:50 AM

You want "lust. lust, lust"?

Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp7fK_JPPsY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ki1_TEwsw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PbeAwRQeo0

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 5:23 AM

Oh yeah, I should probably mention that there are outlets for finding new, challenging music that isn't part of the mainstream - if you're interested. Jack Rabid's "The Big Takeover" is, IMO, the best music rag running. He's been doing this for close to 30 years and his issues always contain a great mix of new upstarts and old favorites, but the best thing is that, unlike most music mags, the content is not driven by ad revenue or label buy-ins. It's just music from the heart, as they say.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 26, 2008 9:49 AM