simon re: me & the klaxons:

See, if he means the stuff the band themselves spout, well I kinda think that’s how UK bands should be–mouthy but confused, fired up by having read a lot of stuff they’ve not properly digested. In that respect they do remind me a bit of Manic Street Preachers, who very early on I did kind of fall for as rhetoricians (only to become increasingly aghast at, as actual music makers).

(again, the problem isn’t with a band-as-rhetoricians scenario. i generally like when bands seem to care about the language people use in describing and categorizing their music. the problem with the klaxons is that they’re young and their fans are younger, so throwing out a term like ‘nu-rave’–which is both shitty and insufficient–does less to rally and more to a) draw ire from ex-ravers angry that their ‘ideals’ are being ‘corrupted’ and b) give writers a ‘interesting’ platform and tidy way to talk about the band [that, or deride them for not being what they claim, or something]. moreover, it binds them to a past that they’re not really a part of anyhow. seriously–as far as i can tell, ‘nu-rave’ only applies to them insofar as they make high-energy music with an occasional window for bliss. but, y’know, keep talking, klaxons, you might find a way out yet.)

also: new chapters in the tale of the stylus takeover:

andrew unterberger, boy wonder: now blog-fresh

the stylus singles jukebox, reanimated, at a frightening clip