Vinyl Me Please Essentials

TenderLovingKiller® said:
IMO they did with indie rock what Nirvana did with Alternate rock. The Strokes were a paradigm shifting movement that was both critically lauded and (relatively) mainstream. Things they had done had been done before and there were groups out there doing interesting things in rock music during the early 2000s but the music on the radio and MTV2 at the time that was “Rock” was mook rock Staind, Limp Bizkit, Papa Roach, Puddle of Mudd bullshit. The Strokes were young and fucking cool. Their music was a pallet cleanser. They made some outstanding music. I was also in college at the time but my musical interest was more in line with acoustic folk and jam band type stuff. Which is fine but mostly irrelevant. Then in a short succession I had a friend introduce me to Pitchfork and The Strokes, The White Stripes and Ryan Adams all happened. This pulled me into the indie rock world hard, it opened the door for the whole NYC/Brooklyn/UK indie rock movement and while it wasn’t as profound as other rock movement in the past, it had a major impact on my musical life interests moving forward. I remember seeing all the hype build for The Strokes at the time and thinking this is gonna be contrived and phony, a bunch of spoiled rich kids making rock music. I think I actively went out of to ignore them initially but I’d be lying if I said my interest wasn’t piqued. Then I finally broke down and listen to Is This It I remember being almost disappointed that it was so fucking great, I was hoping I’d hate it but I couldn’t deny how catchy and cool it all was. I would guess the people that didn’t get The Strokes at the time were either in a good place with their own musical interests at the time (I was not) or a bit too old to get excited about ANOTHER rock revival. All of that makes total sense and is fine but for me The Strokes were an awesome band AND the tip of the spear into a larger musical landscape.
Click to expand...

I don't want to waste the day arguing and if I come across as attacking - its really just hyperbole for effect - and I'm going to try and keep this brief.

There was no "Alt-Rock" or "indie rock" or the the other super micro-genre BS before Nirvana. Nirvana amalgamated sounds from Punk, Rock, Metal & Pop and broke the doors open and expanded the popular consciousness of what that could be and sound like, which in turn ushered in a much more expansive appreciation for a larger, more eclectic umbrella under which "rock music" would sit. Because they essentially neutered almost everything that was "Rock" before them and because Radio and MTV wanted to slaughter the cash cow, they came up with marketing labels to explain to why you'd get Smells Like Teen Spirit followed by Set Adrift on Memory Bliss followed by White Wedding followed by It Ain't Over Till Its Over in rotation on the radio/MTV.

So I can't agree that the Strokes "did for indie rock" what Nirvana did for "Alt-rock" unless you mean, they ALSO triggered the marketing machine into action which resulted in yet another BS label being foisted on the public.

To quote another member of the same Rock genre...."Everybody's talkin' 'bout the new sound, Funny, but it's still rock and roll to me."

wmeugene said:
Wilco's early career greatness faded a little into archetypal Dad rock.
Click to expand...

I cannot adequately express in words the extent to which the use and thought process behind the use of the term "Dad Rock" sends me over the edge.
No. Beyond the fact that Micro-genres are bullshit, this is not one and there is no "archetypical" example of "Dad rock".
I'm a Dad.
I listen to Radiohead, I listen to Lizzo, I listen to Blood Incantation, I listen to Prince, I listen to Daft Punk, I listen to RTJ, And I listen to Wilco.
If Wilco is Dad Rock - So is Radiohead and Blood Incantation and RTJ.
 
supahypeag said:
Yeah...I did hate it lol. I didn't like The Strokes, The White Stripes, or any of that early Indie-Rock scene. When the pop overlords got ahold of it, I enjoyed it a little more. For example, I liked Phoenix, Franz Ferdinand, and the Killers. But maybe I'll like it more now. I dunno. I'm currently somewhere in 1976-1979 in my New-to-Me/Music-Re-evaluation/whatever, so I might like it when I get up to the 2000s. I kinda doubt it though, because I really didn't connect with the garage band stuff in the 60s (for example, I'm not a fan of the Kinks), and it seems like that particular 2000s indie-rock was tapping that vein hard. But I dunno!
Click to expand...
To me, The Strokes to me would fall under influences of the the Velvet Underground/Television/Modern Lovers arm more on the Art Rock/New Wave side of garage rock. If you enjoy those groups you may find them enjoyable but then again if they weren’t your bag the first time around when you were a young impressionable youth then Who knows how charming you’ll find it now.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I'm not mounting a defense of the term "dad rock," but I always thought that the premise behind it wasn't that dads only listen to it, but that, broadly speaking, its audience primarily consists of dad-aged men. It's about the diversity of the fans, not the diversity of the fans' interests, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s music of a certain hue that is nice and conservatively unadventurous and mainly attracts dads. It doesn’t mean that an individual dad can’t like something fun.
 
The Commish said:
I don't want to waste the day arguing and if I come across as attacking - its really just hyperbole for effect - and I'm going to try and keep this brief.

There was no "Alt-Rock" or "indie rock" or the the other super micro-genre BS before Nirvana. Nirvana amalgamated sounds from Punk, Rock, Metal & Pop and broke the doors open and expanded the popular consciousness of what that could be and sound like, which in turn ushered in a much more expansive appreciation for a larger, more eclectic umbrella under which "rock music" would sit. Because they essentially neutered almost everything that was "Rock" before them and because Radio and MTV wanted to slaughter the cash cow, they came up with marketing labels to explain to why you'd get Smells Like Teen Spirit followed by Set Adrift on Memory Bliss followed by White Wedding followed by It Ain't Over Till Its Over in rotation on the radio/MTV.

So I can't agree that the Strokes "did for indie rock" what Nirvana did for "Alt-rock" unless you mean, they ALSO triggered the marketing machine into action which resulted in yet another BS label being foisted on the public.

To quote another member of the same Rock genre...."Everybody's talkin' 'bout the new sound, Funny, but it's still rock and roll to me."



I cannot adequately express in words the extent to which the use and thought process behind the use of the term "Dad Rock" sends me over the edge.
No. Beyond the fact that Micro-genres are bullshit, this is not one and there is no "archetypical" example of "Dad rock".
I'm a Dad.
I listen to Radiohead, I listen to Lizzo, I listen to Blood Incantation, I listen to Prince, I listen to Daft Punk, I listen to RTJ, And I listen to Wilco.
If Wilco is Dad Rock - So is Radiohead and Blood Incantation and RTJ.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hung around with a lot of Record Store guys who “were not into labels” and purity of music thing but when I was a young kid who grew up in the middle of nowhere. I didn’t have the exposure to cool and interesting music until it got sucked up into hype machine of popular culture. If I didn’t have MTV and RollingStone and Spin Magazine and Q101 I would not have been exposed to Nirvana (which led me to the Pixies, and Meat Puppets, and Sonic Youth and Pavement, etc...,etc....). I get that there is another side of corporatization of these movements that led to Candlebox and Bush and a bunch of other bullshit post grunge bands but you take the good and filter out the shit. None of my exposure to these bands would likely have occurred if Nirvana didn’t make it okay for MTV to play some weird and creative music. No offense to Billy Joel but that’s a fairly cynical take on music and that’s fine. Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.

FWIW: The dad rock label makes me roll my eyes a bit too.
 
Joe Mac said:
Yeah it’s music of a certain hue that is nice and conservatively unadventurous and mainly attracts dads. It doesn’t mean that an individual dad can’t like something fun.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's not a super serious micro-genre and I dont get why it would set someone over the edge. Joe's description is dead on. Wilco's work post-Sky Blue Sky has sort of settled into this consistent hue of atmosphere and adventurousness (or lack therefore of) that can be described as Dad rock.

I'm a dad of two, the descriptor is not an insult to Dads in the world, it is mildly amusing and conjures up an appropriate image of the band's main demographic at this point.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Hmm -- I actually don't know if I'd say it's unadventurous. It's playing in an established sandbox because it's older, but 'unadventurous' connotes something akin to 'trite' for me, and I don't think that fits. "Dad-rock" artists are exploring and building on sounds that once were fairly experimental. It may not be sonically innovative, but I don't think that's necessarily equivalent to not evolving within the genre.
Click to expand...

Thats probably fair.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Hmm -- I actually don't know if I'd say it's unadventurous. It's playing in an established sandbox because it's older, but 'unadventurous' connotes something akin to 'trite' for me, and I don't think that fits. "Dad-rock" artists are exploring and building on sounds that once were fairly experimental. It may not be sonically innovative, but I don't think that's necessarily equivalent to not evolving within the genre.
Click to expand...
I think it used to mean “shitty” rock music your dad listened to (preface: if you like any of the following groups please don’t take it as an insult and I actually enjoy some of this stuff too.) Artist like Journey, Chicago, Doobie Brothers, Styx, etc...but the term has evolved to represent like pleasant indie rock from career indie rock bands. It only feels like a slight to certain folks IMO because it congers up comparisons to the aforementioned groups and regardless whatever you think of Wilco and The National I would assume most would not include it in the same vein as Foreigner.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
I think it used to mean “shitty” rock music your dad listened to (preface: if you like any of the following groups please don’t take it as an insult and I actually enjoy some of this stuff too.) Artist like Journey, Chicago, Doobie Brothers, Styx, etc...but the term has evolved to represent like pleasant indie rock from career indie rock bands. It only feels like a slight to certain folks IMO because it congers up comparisons to the aforementioned groups and regardless whatever you think of Wilco and The National I would assume most would not include it in the same vein as Foreigner.
Click to expand...

I just think of Dire Straights and let that thought send me into a deep sleep...
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I'm not mounting a defense of the term "dad rock," but I always thought that the premise behind it wasn't that dads only listen to it, but that, broadly speaking, its audience primarily consists of dad-aged men. It's about the diversity of the fans, not the diversity of the fans' interests, right?
Click to expand...

I guess most broadly my issue with it is that it has become a short-hand derisive term in the lexicon that, as an admitted stan of Wilco, sets my teeth on edge because its suggests/ascribes a milquetoast quality to the sound that is completely unfair.

But from a non-stan standpoint - its the ONLY micro-genre where its kind of acceptable to profile the age/sex/etc. of the audience as the primary identifier of the "sound". I think we all agree that is not appropriate everywhere else, but here it gets a pass.

I guess the combo of stan+ my own perceived hypocrisy baked into it....makes me go 👹 every time.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Yeah, I hung around with a lot of Record Store guys who “were not into labels” and purity of music thing but when I was a young kid who grew up in the middle of nowhere. I didn’t have the exposure to cool and interesting music until it got sucked up into hype machine of popular culture. If I didn’t have MTV and RollingStone and Spin Magazine and Q101 I would not have been exposed to Nirvana (which led me to the Pixies, and Meat Puppets, and Sonic Youth and Pavement, etc...,etc....). I get that there is another side of corporatization of these movements that led to Candlebox and Bush and a bunch of other bullshit post grunge bands but you take the good and filter out the shit. None of my exposure to these bands would likely have occurred if Nirvana didn’t make it okay for MTV to play some weird and creative music. No offense to Billy Joel but that’s a fairly cynical take on music and that’s fine. Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.

FWIW: The dad rock label makes me roll my eyes a bit too.
Click to expand...
You hit a good point that I was thinking in regards to @The Commish saying that Nirvana neutered rock that came before them.

In my mind (that never really worshipped Nirvana and never really liked any other grunge bands that people associate with them remotely as much as Nirvana) I think the best thing Cobain did for music was draw attention to his favorite bands that came before him. Tons of people discovered amazing music through his journal and top 50 albums list. I think due to his extreme popularity those bands got a ton more exposure and influenced more bands that came after him. I'm sure I'm diminishing the true influence of Nirvana but I don't think I'm totally off base.
 
wmeugene said:
Yeah, it's not a super serious micro-genre and I dont get why it would set someone over the edge. Joe's description is dead on. Wilco's work post-Sky Blue Sky has sort of settled into this consistent hue of atmosphere and adventurousness (or lack therefore of) that can be described as Dad rock.

I'm a dad of two, the descriptor is not an insult to Dads in the world, it is mildly amusing and conjures up an appropriate image of the band's main demographic at this point.
Click to expand...

See, here is where the Stan in me comes out.

Wilco (the Album) thorugh Ode to Joy are no less (fill in your adjective of critical adulation here_________________), than: Mitski's Puberty2/Be the Cowboy or Julien Baker's Turn Out The Lights or Big Thief's Two Hands or Julia Jacklin's Crushing or Lucy Dacus' Historian or Better Oblivion Community Center or Waxahatchee's Out in the Storm or Hop Along's Bark, Your Head Off Dog or Courtney Barnett's' Tell Me How You Really Feel..

But, because its Wilco its "Dad Rock".
 
Last edited:
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Look at us, a bunch of middle-aged dudes discussing “Dad Rock” in between sips of coffee while we should be working.

Also, for those wondering; this all started as a conversation about The Roots potentially being one of the great band/groups of our generation so it is still on topic. Trust me.
Click to expand...

This is way more important than anything I'm expected to do at work today.
 
The Commish said:
I guess most broadly my issue with it is that it has become a short-hand derisive term in the lexicon that, as an admitted stan of Wilco, sets my teeth on edge because its suggests/ascribes a milquetoast quality to the sound that is completely unfair.

But from a non-stan standpoint - its the ONLY micro-genre where its kind of acceptable to profile the age/sex/etc. of the audience as the primary identifier of the "sound". I think we all agree that is not appropriate everywhere else, but here it gets a pass.

I guess the combo of stan+ my own perceived hypocrisy baked into it....makes me go 👹 every time.
Click to expand...
100% agreed. I can see the argument for Sky Blue Sky through The Whole Love being described as "dad rock" or "unadventurous" (though even the latter album has a few out-there tracks), but their last three have been anything but.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top