On Sunday they gave him the 2011 Grammy for best album of the year by The Arcade Fire Suburbs (2010, Merge). So far right. An award that disputed with Eminem, Lady Antebellum, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry. Ridiculous competition for a record that despite not winning my weakness as street rivals easy formula pop format focusing on the single.
What happens is we talk about the Grammy awards that are usually distributed among the industry's most popular musical entertainment and artistic value is questionable, the budget is what matters. For a while, when an unusual group of the masses get a prize or popular recognition for his work there is talk that the indie is the new mainstream.
What are sales success: mainstream. Will no longer see four cats and their mothers in a bar seedy but now fill stadiums: mainstream. That and their songs are known by more people getting bigger: mainstream. Etc. ad nauseum. This is bullshit. Grammy Arcade Fire (YouTube) Let's use a popular and recurring to have a common starting point for something more talk than mine.
The Wikipedia (blablabla, what bad is, blablabla). Someone at the time set in the Spanish edition: On that basis we are assuming that Arcade Fire are "largely accepted." The tumblr example above demonstrates how far is this approach to reality. Much of the public concerned at the Grammys did not even know them.
This audience is massive, share common features and are interested in music. If even this target with a minimum acceptable specialization in the subject can tell who they are Arcade Fire, then we're not talking about mainstream. Arcade Fire's music, however much or go gafapastas snob, does not come easily to the general public.
Perhaps so to an audience more accustomed to depending on which sounds, but not the general public. Rihanna, Katy Perry Lady Gaga do come through its database accessible pop sounds well produced and a spectacular image. But you will see the white-fronted Win Butler and the last thing you think, I'm going to cover the folder with your image.
Much less with Régine Chassagne. Although Canadians are improving this aspect by leaps and bounds remain the epitome of rock band public. Fortunately for those who sign this, the sound of Arcade Fire is not a general trend as if other sounds are considered mainstream. Not talking about mainstream.
As much as the baroque pop has been booming in recent years, the general public is not an issue of such shoots when lifting or lower it to put it on the phone at full throttle while riding in the subway smiling the rest of the passengers. After that would be the meaning of mainstream as something established and accepted, but as in turn must be consumed en masse by a large public turn to miss.
One of the most controversial points is the link between the term mainstream with Arcade Fire to discuss the production and marketing. Canadians are under the umbrella of an independent label, Merge Records, which sells albums in the U.S. under the ADA distributor (The Alternative Distribution Alliance), owned by the powerful Warner by 95% and the other mere 5% in the hands of Sub Pop In Britain, the group distributes his work on Mercury Records, owned by Universal Music Group.
With these data we are talking about a mainstream group. Has the means and support to them. Right. Then, under this premise that we talk about Sonic Youth have been mainstream for most of his career to go through DGC and Geffen Records. Both companies now owned by Universal, once in the hands distributed by Warner.
If Sonic Youth are mainstream because of this, forget it. Then discard the aspect of having great means at its disposal to justify that Arcade Fire are mainstream and in the end the media and subsequent sale would not affect a larger facility. The group still sounds the same. With production more or less elaborate, but in essence they are not user-friendly sound.
If we are facing huge sales figures. The Suburbs has awarded two incredible number 1 in Britain and the U.S. Billboard 200, the two most difficult markets to conquer (in Spain came to No. 2). Does this mean that it is mainstream? No! In addition to all the above points, it is a success in the charts in many countries is by no means mainstream, understanding the term as used.
From my perspective the potential audience in these sounds is increasing with various events to discuss another day, but still a minority, something that represents the essence of mainstream. We talked about a large population, massive, not a broad group who bought the same product and therefore has achieved high sales figures.
This group is stronger than before because it is larger and its weight is noted in the data but does not become general. I would like to elaborate any further here but rather long and tedious to me is being expanded. Sorry for not knowing better synthesize. This is where I'm most angry and often used when referring to the mainstream.
This description usually has pejorative connotations, while the indie often mean the opposite, not to mention the underground that is something untouchable (courageous stupidity). It's not something I invented. Even on Wikipedia, by alluding to the common point and not leave the subject, has reflected this.
If one assumes that the music of Arcade Fire is "too commercial" explain it to me because then they would have a thousand clones and selling on the world stage and filling the same radios, television sets and Internet en masse. So far I have not seen is a general trend, it is likely that within a time if still standing clones arise more groups to the general public but for the moment.
We like it or not Arcade Fire's music is to recognize its artistic value. It is music that makes overnight by placing a prefabricated base David Ghetto. Country music triumphs at Grammys (YouTube) The eternal question of the million. All self-respecting forums have their thread with this discussion.
The result is always the same: marketing, sales and profits, business tactics, etc. Francisco Nixon made it clear in several entries in his blog (there was a more concrete but not found), "The indie is a publishing phenomenon." So what we are talking about is a change in product sales. No longer interested in turning the group into a new idol mass but maintain its status as an artist beloved by the few.
Indie do not talk or milk or vinegar. We talked about marketing. Of how an industry seeks to make Arcade Fire and other groups of international hits style for an audience that is the same as the mainstream has other references only and is believed to alternative (no matter what, that's too much thinking.) His association with these references often feel the same as the mainstream consumer: passion for his group, a defense to a third party faithful follower, buyer of their albums, attending the concerts.
Not a matter of simplification, as I here add a minimum of critical perspective in this audience, but every time I put more in doubt. For me the Indie music is just a label set that provides context for certain groups, such that electronic music, which itself includes a lot but nothing concrete.
Inside has the subgenres of pop, rock and other stories. That is just what I mean by indie. This causes a group to remain "Indie Rock" if he keeps his style, which brought together a large audience. I will billets. I doubt anyone has read the whole magnificent reading the bold diagonal provided.
If so, thanks. Everything comes at the absurdity of thinking from a negative point of view because this group is becoming massive bad. The Rolling Stones are the most idolized of history and therefore no longer be the best. Arcade Fire that won a Grammy, congratulations. That means that an artist of a minimum quality (of course, on my scale) has surpassed others not so and go to pure business, something that any group but aims to present something to defend, good music.
What a group like Love of Lesbian fill the room for four days Joy Eslava in Madrid? Joy! Like it or so is a group that does something unthinkable to many today. Julieta Venegas What is the IFF? Enjoy it! It is better that many of the artists displayed on the poster. What Arcade Fire sweep across the world? Magnificent! Does that mean you are going to meistrim (sic) in the most negative and Erik told The Planets? For nothing.
All it means is that a larger group of people will have the opportunity to discover the Arcade Fire through the award of a prize and who knows if those people who say who the fuck are these guys just inquiring about their music and therefore by as many groups to pull the blanket. At the end are indie or mainstream commercial labels that provide the context and would have to give equal.
If the group is good and has great themes, as it is: enjoy the music! Rihanna Sea or The Residents. 
What happens is we talk about the Grammy awards that are usually distributed among the industry's most popular musical entertainment and artistic value is questionable, the budget is what matters. For a while, when an unusual group of the masses get a prize or popular recognition for his work there is talk that the indie is the new mainstream.
What are sales success: mainstream. Will no longer see four cats and their mothers in a bar seedy but now fill stadiums: mainstream. That and their songs are known by more people getting bigger: mainstream. Etc. ad nauseum. This is bullshit. Grammy Arcade Fire (YouTube) Let's use a popular and recurring to have a common starting point for something more talk than mine.
The Wikipedia (blablabla, what bad is, blablabla). Someone at the time set in the Spanish edition: On that basis we are assuming that Arcade Fire are "largely accepted." The tumblr example above demonstrates how far is this approach to reality. Much of the public concerned at the Grammys did not even know them.
This audience is massive, share common features and are interested in music. If even this target with a minimum acceptable specialization in the subject can tell who they are Arcade Fire, then we're not talking about mainstream. Arcade Fire's music, however much or go gafapastas snob, does not come easily to the general public.
Perhaps so to an audience more accustomed to depending on which sounds, but not the general public. Rihanna, Katy Perry Lady Gaga do come through its database accessible pop sounds well produced and a spectacular image. But you will see the white-fronted Win Butler and the last thing you think, I'm going to cover the folder with your image.
Much less with Régine Chassagne. Although Canadians are improving this aspect by leaps and bounds remain the epitome of rock band public. Fortunately for those who sign this, the sound of Arcade Fire is not a general trend as if other sounds are considered mainstream. Not talking about mainstream.
As much as the baroque pop has been booming in recent years, the general public is not an issue of such shoots when lifting or lower it to put it on the phone at full throttle while riding in the subway smiling the rest of the passengers. After that would be the meaning of mainstream as something established and accepted, but as in turn must be consumed en masse by a large public turn to miss.
One of the most controversial points is the link between the term mainstream with Arcade Fire to discuss the production and marketing. Canadians are under the umbrella of an independent label, Merge Records, which sells albums in the U.S. under the ADA distributor (The Alternative Distribution Alliance), owned by the powerful Warner by 95% and the other mere 5% in the hands of Sub Pop In Britain, the group distributes his work on Mercury Records, owned by Universal Music Group.
With these data we are talking about a mainstream group. Has the means and support to them. Right. Then, under this premise that we talk about Sonic Youth have been mainstream for most of his career to go through DGC and Geffen Records. Both companies now owned by Universal, once in the hands distributed by Warner.
If Sonic Youth are mainstream because of this, forget it. Then discard the aspect of having great means at its disposal to justify that Arcade Fire are mainstream and in the end the media and subsequent sale would not affect a larger facility. The group still sounds the same. With production more or less elaborate, but in essence they are not user-friendly sound.
If we are facing huge sales figures. The Suburbs has awarded two incredible number 1 in Britain and the U.S. Billboard 200, the two most difficult markets to conquer (in Spain came to No. 2). Does this mean that it is mainstream? No! In addition to all the above points, it is a success in the charts in many countries is by no means mainstream, understanding the term as used.
From my perspective the potential audience in these sounds is increasing with various events to discuss another day, but still a minority, something that represents the essence of mainstream. We talked about a large population, massive, not a broad group who bought the same product and therefore has achieved high sales figures.
This group is stronger than before because it is larger and its weight is noted in the data but does not become general. I would like to elaborate any further here but rather long and tedious to me is being expanded. Sorry for not knowing better synthesize. This is where I'm most angry and often used when referring to the mainstream.
This description usually has pejorative connotations, while the indie often mean the opposite, not to mention the underground that is something untouchable (courageous stupidity). It's not something I invented. Even on Wikipedia, by alluding to the common point and not leave the subject, has reflected this.
If one assumes that the music of Arcade Fire is "too commercial" explain it to me because then they would have a thousand clones and selling on the world stage and filling the same radios, television sets and Internet en masse. So far I have not seen is a general trend, it is likely that within a time if still standing clones arise more groups to the general public but for the moment.
We like it or not Arcade Fire's music is to recognize its artistic value. It is music that makes overnight by placing a prefabricated base David Ghetto. Country music triumphs at Grammys (YouTube) The eternal question of the million. All self-respecting forums have their thread with this discussion.
The result is always the same: marketing, sales and profits, business tactics, etc. Francisco Nixon made it clear in several entries in his blog (there was a more concrete but not found), "The indie is a publishing phenomenon." So what we are talking about is a change in product sales. No longer interested in turning the group into a new idol mass but maintain its status as an artist beloved by the few.
Indie do not talk or milk or vinegar. We talked about marketing. Of how an industry seeks to make Arcade Fire and other groups of international hits style for an audience that is the same as the mainstream has other references only and is believed to alternative (no matter what, that's too much thinking.) His association with these references often feel the same as the mainstream consumer: passion for his group, a defense to a third party faithful follower, buyer of their albums, attending the concerts.
Not a matter of simplification, as I here add a minimum of critical perspective in this audience, but every time I put more in doubt. For me the Indie music is just a label set that provides context for certain groups, such that electronic music, which itself includes a lot but nothing concrete.
Inside has the subgenres of pop, rock and other stories. That is just what I mean by indie. This causes a group to remain "Indie Rock" if he keeps his style, which brought together a large audience. I will billets. I doubt anyone has read the whole magnificent reading the bold diagonal provided.
If so, thanks. Everything comes at the absurdity of thinking from a negative point of view because this group is becoming massive bad. The Rolling Stones are the most idolized of history and therefore no longer be the best. Arcade Fire that won a Grammy, congratulations. That means that an artist of a minimum quality (of course, on my scale) has surpassed others not so and go to pure business, something that any group but aims to present something to defend, good music.
What a group like Love of Lesbian fill the room for four days Joy Eslava in Madrid? Joy! Like it or so is a group that does something unthinkable to many today. Julieta Venegas What is the IFF? Enjoy it! It is better that many of the artists displayed on the poster. What Arcade Fire sweep across the world? Magnificent! Does that mean you are going to meistrim (sic) in the most negative and Erik told The Planets? For nothing.
All it means is that a larger group of people will have the opportunity to discover the Arcade Fire through the award of a prize and who knows if those people who say who the fuck are these guys just inquiring about their music and therefore by as many groups to pull the blanket. At the end are indie or mainstream commercial labels that provide the context and would have to give equal.
If the group is good and has great themes, as it is: enjoy the music! Rihanna Sea or The Residents.
- Indie author Simon Royle interviews Joanna (07/02/2011)
- Indie Gone Mainstream: Grammy 2k11 Recap (14/02/2011)
- Indie darling Closure gets a facelift for commercial release (04/02/2011)
- Announcing our first 2011 Sponsor: Indie Press Revolution from ENnie Awards (02/02/2011)
- Arcade Fire's Grammy Win Praised By Indie-Rock Community (14/02/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment