I love to champion new music but always think it's a mistake to push it as "the new [whoever]" or "very [classic band]-esque." It's just asking for problems. What's classic will last through time, what's pleasant will be good enough for now and what's awful will fade quickly. No reason to bring up every little inspiration or similarity, because time will tell regardless. I don't listen to the Beach Boys because they could've been the next Four Freshmen, or the Beatles because of their Buddy Holly-inspired sounds. As for Fleet Foxes, I think they're fine. Not all that different than a lot of other bands who are around, either, just getting some good press. (Beachwood Sparks, defunct since the early 00s, were a better band in a similar country/folk/harmony-vocal vein, I thought.)
Could not agree more on this. The need for branding drives everything new. Before I take a bite, what does it taste like? Before I listen, what does it sound like that I've already heard? You'll love this new movie- it's like "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" meets "Goodbye, Mr. Chips", only with puppettoons.
The art of selling a movie now is the craft of connecting it to something they think you've already seen and liked.
Remember when the Knack were the new Beatles? Granted, that was more connected to some Capitol sales statistic than anything else, but still- somebody should do a compilation disc of the best of the former new Beatles. Track one: "Saturday Night", by the Bay City Rollers (the new Beatles).
Having said all that, I do get drawn into checking out bands who are extensively compared to the Beach Boys, in hopes that the musical values - or the level of imagination- will be the same ones that I like in the BBs' work. Usually it simply means backing harmonies are used or there's an occasional high voice doing a woo-woo part.
Author
