12. Fleet Foxes
A good band should be like Frosted Mini-Wheats, a substantive cereal loaded with fiber and whole grains made edible by delicious sugary coating. Fleet Foxes, unfortunately, are more like Weetabix, a healthful, bowel-movement-inducing breakfast option that skimps on taste. There's undoubtedly genuine musicianship behind this Seattle outfit, it's just wholly unpalatable, lacking even the most basic hooks and melodies necessary to sustain most listeners. Of course, white people aren't like most listeners, and will tolerate almost anything they're told is good for them; hence the group's popularity. Unlike Weetabix, however, there's not a shred of evidence suggesting Fleet Foxes prevent colorectal cancer. -Ben Westhoff
This ran last year in the L.A. Weekly. You can read it all here.
It's an odd list with some obvious selections and hilarious reasons for their inclusion. But then there are some that seem to be included just for contrary hipster sake, which for me of course, disqualifies the whole list. Wings? Really? Or Rush?
I'm most offended by the inclusion of Foreigner, but maybe we should save that discussion for another time.
14 comments:
As much as I love Macca, I can recall Wings' music provoking my gag reflex on more than one occasion during their heyday.
I'm also OK with Rush's inclusion on the list. Geddy Lee would very likely have gone down in the history books as the most annoying rock vocalist ever were it not for the arrival of Axl Rose.
Something to offend everyone here. Snarky and clueless.
Reminds me somehow of a quote from "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux which has stuck with me for decades. The narrator is a boy, and very early in the book someone says to him,
"Your father is the most dangerous kind of man, a know-it-all who is sometimes right."
There HAS to be a difference between an annoying band and a "worst" band. All the explication seems to point to the idea that the compilers of this list don't see the distinction.
Dave-
BINGO!
This is how stupid their lists are: one of them is the twenty whitest musicians of all time. And neither Edgar nor Johnny Winter made the list.
While I agree with a couple of the choices this guys criteria for inclusion seems kinda sketchy. Are the Black Eyed Peas and LCD Soundsystem really "bands" any way? The problem w/Wings is the same problem Paul has always had post-Beatles, there`s no one w/the balls to tell him to work harder. Still, in the midst of some slight and half baked material, there was always a couple of diamonds that most writers would kill for. The same could be said for the Eagles, although their imperious, distant, misogynistic manner made them them easier to dislike.
I get the impression that this guy simply does`n`t like anyone who had/has a better shot at getting laid than he does. Too harsh?
ooops, just realized that it was different writers. Oh, well. just call me Emily Litella.
ugh, lists... they sell a lot of magazines and people obviously love 'em, can't get enough of 'em... but...
ugh. lists are about snark, aren't they? i dislike the reductionism, the hierarchical structure.
course i hate questions like "what's your favorite movie / book / whatever?" i mean, what is my most favorite whatever, in all situations, at all times? it's unanswerable. and it's about telling other people that their choices are inferior (and by extension, so are they).
don't get me wrong—i'm as snarky as anybody and i like discussing why things suck or soar (obviously).
but lists are for kids.
i rest my case. think i'll go milk the elk.
You have to read these things with a grain of salt, and look for the good one-liners. Because the basic concept is asinine. What they really meant to say was "20 Most Over-rated Bands of All Time" as opposed to "Worst" ... but worst makes for better copy/pisses off more fans. And that's the whole point, to only write about bands with sizable, steady, ongoing fan bases.
In a perfect world, the writing would be geared towards pithy and looking to start a debate, as opposed to sounding like Paul Lynde in center square if he was into rock and indie music. A much more interesting list would be bands and artists you hate who somehow break through the wall of hatred with one song or album. But that would be too positive? If you've noticed internet popularity is rarely associated with positive sentiments, unless we're talking cats in youtube videos.
I am always amused by the strong revulsion that Fleet Foxes provokes in these circles. I actually like their stuff. For such a meek band, I am surprised they get folks revved up.
And I have not really heard someone identify what they really find revolting in particular. Usually the detractors fall back on a metaphor (weetabix is funny) - which is poetic and all, but kinda a cheap shot.
May I offer my two cents regarding the Fleet Foxes?
I find it all very shallow. To me they just sound like a lot of the bands I love, but fail in doing it for themselves. The songs are barely there. It's all style and no substance. It's not enough to just harmonize. A melody would be nice occasonally.
Sal is right. They have the sound but lack the tunes. They are not alone in this. This also plagues the Alabama Shakes, and many of their peers. It goes back to, "You'll love them, they'll remind you of (blank)."
Yes, except the songs are no good.
I admit I haven't heard all their music, but what I have lacks a certain je ne sais quoi.
I am not sure how Phish figures in here. The whole list is invalid . . . plus the Monkees are not on it!
Brownsville Station/London Choir Boys(whom I had high hopes for).... but i really hate foster the people and have never gotten the national(tho, their drummer Bryan D. was once my co-worker and is a good guy who went from $5 gigs @galapagos to Carnegie hall).....
Post a Comment