Yep all the time! Takes me awhile to come around to new stuff or particularly hyped stuff. I avoided MIA for ages but came around after reading a great interview with her.

Jon - interesting post but you don't have to justify what you like to anyone, least of all me. I wrote on my KEXP post this week that I think being a critic is more about explaining why you like the wrong bands than blindly following the right ones. That is what makes us music fans and writers in the first place.

Moreover, there are tons of buzz bands that I love. "I'm Not Going to Teach Your Boyfriend How To Dance With You" by the Black Kids is one of the highest played songs on my iPod and I've been really enjoying Vampire Weekend lately and listen to Justice and the Arctic Monkeys quite a bit as well. When I started going to shows and listening to "indie rock" (I still don't know what that term means), the hot-shit buzz band was the Strokes and I still love them to this day. I have a blog post coming up about Annie, who I first heard about from reading P4k a few years ago. I could go on and on...

Jon, I don't have any ideal for what music should be or what people should listen to. I listen to what I like because I enjoy it and I hope everyone else does the same thing. Please stop worrying about indie cred or whatever and listen to music because you enjoy it. You'll have more fun and it will make you a better writer.

i made that mistake with Amy Winehouse all of last year - I had Back to Black the entire time but didn't even listen to it til like March of this year, and it's amazing. i do that a lot though. i don't think i listened to the Postal Service or the Arcade Fire until way later.

It's easy to make that mistake. Indie music started off priding itself on not being like anything else out there but the fans/critics/what have you's follow the same formula.

Often there are bands that everyone in the indie rock community seems to love that I despise. People criticize me for being snobby.. but really if you don't like something you don't like it! (examples: Vampire Weekend, Arctic Monkeys, The Strokes, the White Stripes - okay they have a few good songs.) You get my drift.

It's a hard road. I was a college radio MD for 4 years and listened to roughly 150-200 records a week for that entire period. I can remember the first time I heard certain records: Ani DiFranco's 'Dilate' & Fiona Apple's 'Tidal' & Bjork's 'Homogenic' especially. I rarely missed the hits-my friends thought I had 'the ear' but I was really just lucky. This was obviously way before music blogs and the hype machine that surrounds indie music got really going. I would be intimidated to go into the music biz now w/ so many voices leading the sheep to the record stores but back then we had to make our own decisions-like back when radio DJ's actually made those choices. So, my advice to you is learn how to make your own decisions.

Sometimes songs have legs and you can listen to them for months and other times you just don't get it for a while. Music is all relative. That's why we, as critics, never say a band sucks we just tell you why they really aren't that good. Anyone can hear a crap song and connect it with a moment in their life and the two become intertwined...all the best for you if that's the case; indeed, it still happens to the most jaded of people.

FYI. I can tell you through experience that bands who experiment in genre-mixing generally do not last very long. So, there's a bout a 75% chance that all those Vampire Weekend fans are going to feel like asses this time next year. Just my 2 cents on them...

I was a late bloomer for In Rainbows. I can't stop listening now, six months too late. Ahh well, better late than never.

Mike, I think you're right. Thats actually what I love about music, and independent music at that. I can sit there and tell you why this band sucks ass but you may really love them and have legitimate reason for it.

It's a mixed bag.. and I love every minute of it. Unless it's Vampire Weekend.

There is a tendency to reject bands that get a lot of buzz. Well, I have that tendency, especially based on where they get a lot of said buzz (e.g., Pitchfork, Spin, NME, etc.) A lot of the time, buzz is all the band has going for it, especially with some of the acts that NME loves like Gallows or Biffy Clyro or Stereophonics or Arctic Monkeys or whatever the flavor of the month is, but there are a number of bands that I've ignored because of "buzz" that I shouldn't have, namely Modest Mouse (back in the day), Lupe Fiasco, Badly Drawn Boy, Boat, Magnetic Fields and so on. I tend to have a brief period of guilt when I start listening, but it goes away when you realize that you should like music because its good, not to impress friends and acquaintances. Once you get to that point, music is a lot more fun because you're not stuck into a genre/scene. People who are "into" music thanks to genre/scene are the ones who suck all the life out of it and are really "lifestyle" fans, not music fans.

Oh yeah, and I still like Vampire Weekend. So there. Everyone told me the same thing about the Strokes and I still love there stuff. That's music for ya.

Times New Viking was going to play a show where i live, i listen to them, forgot about them, and now rip it off is my favorite

Times New Viking was going to play a show where i live, i listen to them, forgot about them, and now rip it off is one of my favorite albums of the year

It all reminds me of this comic:

(Hat tip to Toothpaste for Dinner)

I am so madly in love with all things Toothpaste for Dinner/Natalie Dee.

I too love toothpaste for dinner.

I too wrote off the Strokes and now think Is This It? is a modern classic.

I too think Vampire Weekend is going to fade out. Their fifteen minutes of fame could very possibly die before they even play...er...headline (?) CHBP. Sort of like Matisyahu and Sasquatch a few years ago. Granted, I still love a handful of VW's stuff.

It's an easy rut to get into, but most blogs know their shit, and I suppose I wouldn't want someone dismissing the music on my blog because I'm giving it buzz.

Good music therapy session so far! Hah.

I tend to go the other way with it. Instead of getting scared away from something because it's over hyped, I tend to become intrigued and then I get to worried about missing out on something I might like. I figure there must be some reason everyone's raving over it, so I check it out and if I don't like then oh well.
I think the big difference is where the hype is coming from. I trust places like TIG, KEXP, and numerous other music mags because I've found their suggestions in the past interesting and my tastes match up with them. It's the same reason I wouldn't trust the hype coming from Spin, NME, or Rolling Stone, because generally I don't trust their opinions on music.
I guess in the end I place my musical enjoyment over my musical status. Then again, I'm already on the 'elitist' end of the spectrum with my circle of friends, but compared to the regulars in this forum, my musical pallet is probably much smaller. I guess it's all perspective.

"I could fall in love with almost anyone / I think people are the greatest fun." --Love

I like a whole lot of stuff everyone else likes. Then again, I like less of it.

That is, it's rare I can't find one good song on an album everybody else seems to be into. But I may not like much more than that.

Which of course brings up the notion that "buzz bands" maybe don't have a better batting average than (good quality) mainstream stuff. There might be a false dichotomy there, at least to me.

i also have a weird relationship with the whole "buzz band" thing. it generally goes like this:

1. read about the same artist on several blogs [usually the super-popular ones, because they practically listen to the exact same artists].
2. ignore said artist for months.
3. after all the blog hype dies down, give the artist a listen.
4. find out that i actually really like the music, and jumping on the bandwagon months too late. or, i realize that i don't really like it, and then it doesn't really matter.

this scenario [save the "or i realize i don't really like it..."] has happened to me most recently with st. vincent, bon iver, and no age, the latter now quickly becoming one of my favorite working bands. i suppose it's natural to have an aversion towards something everyone's talking about. it's not a bad thing, but sometimes, you're late to the game on an artist you end up really liking, or even worse, you don't show up to the game at all and miss out on something you'd love.

The buzz band, or blog band phenomenon works in two ways. It tends to dramatically reduce the shelf life of bands that can’t or won’t use the hype to their utmost advantage (Claps Your Hands and Say Yeah, Tapes N Tapes); or it propels bands, who know how to carefully craft an image and manipulate the media hype machine, to stardom long before they’ve “earned” it (Vampire Weekend).

But in the end it gets people talking about music and an open exchange of ideas is never a bad thing. Rather you think Vampire Weekend is a not so clever rip off of Paul Simon’s “Graceland” or if you think they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread, the blog band hype gets people talking about, and ultimately discovering, new music so I’m all for it.

i think hype in general isn't aimed at us-the people proactive enough to go out and find music. it is aimed at people who don't care enough to be opinionated who will just go buy what's on the radio or on a commercial. i think it is my (and our) duty to listen to everything we can so when we meet someone who meet someone who really likes Mum and MJ Cole we can introduce them to Burial or they like Sabbath but haven't listened to any new music in a while so we can tell them about Black Mountain, etc. that's why we come here, and other places, every day and it's why there's always new records to listen to on my and your computer but there's never really enough either, is there?

Or too much, too.

I have never heard Vampire Weekend, far as I know. Must have, but it never registered, and I didn't get a review copy. I have read a lot about them though. None of it matters until I can hear how much they sound like ripped-off "Graceland," and if that's true, I might actually like them.

At least they didn't dig deeper into the Paul Simon vault and reinterpret "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover."

all I have to say is that I have given into Vampire Weekend bigtime and it is additcing, esp at this time of year. so fuck it, whatever, its a fun album. thats the way with most of buzz bands sort of thing anyway so why not? I just get over myself and enjoy the music, hahah.

So one blog band I did give into right off the bat was Page France. They're basically like candy: great and sweet in a small dose, but makes you sick after a while. Their Hello, Dear Wind reminds me so much of summer. I think they got some flack cuz of their "christian undertones" but they're, in the very least, charming at times.

I learned my lesson on this topic from Kid A. What a huge disappointment I thought it was at first.

This doesnt always hold true, but at least for artists that I'm already familiar with, a strongly negative reaction to a first listen is usually a good sign.

I learned my lesson on this topic from Kid A. What a huge disappointment I thought it was at first.

This doesnt always hold true, but at least for artists that I'm already familiar with, a strongly negative reaction to a first listen is usually a good sign.

Yeah, isn't that funny how that works? The sad part is if you've already written and had published your negative review. And then you may run into the band later and if they remember your negative review there really is nothing you can do to rectify that situation -- you were the bastard who gave them needless grief. I would like to say I had artists who overlooked this, and maybe it did happen, but usually not.

This is a great thread. As I listen to records I avoided due to great buzz when they first came out or that I ignored for years -- for me, lately it's been Grandaddy's "Sumday," Dusty Springfield's "Dusty in Memphis," Tom Waits' "Orphans, Gary Numan's sweet new reissue of "Replicas" -- every time I do I feel that weird twinge of, "What was I thinking, avoiding this?" For some reason, the guilt only lessons over time and persistent plays.

Dave Matthew's Band

Over the course of a decade+ I can't tell you how many times I screamed, turn that SHIT off the radio NOW! NOW! He sounds like a MUPPET! Frat boy SHIT!

And now I am a total convert. Total. I utter the phrase "Dave is a prophet" AT LEAST once a week.

All it took was a long Labor Day weekend at the Gorge.

YUP

Ouch. Dave Matthews?

Yea this is a good thread. It gets the music snob in me a'thinkin'. Just recently I've been avoiding Moby's new release because, well, because it's Moby. Slowly I'm coming around to a few tracks. They're just so... good. Really they are.

I had a good friend who was a rock critic in the 80s, who championed bands like The Smiths before the rest of us heard them, that would occasionally go to a record store and buy something like Asia's new record to "check out why this stuff is popular." He got amazing music for free all the time, but felt that he had to spend money every now and then to study the highly criticized releases to see why they would be so popular (or were created specifically to be huge-selling). It never ended well for him or the band that was reviewed, that probably never saw the review anyways.

Yes, I think we all have done SOMETHING like this -- for example, I made sure to spend my own money on "Back To Black" as an experience in the Shared Pop Moment. But that shows I'm not much of a gambler, if that's what's considered "conformist-consumption" for me.

Every now and then I masochistically fantasize about spending a year with nothing but music by Dave Matthews, John Mayer, and whatever else Hootie-style shenanigans have been released in the past decade or so. Sort of like Noel Murray's "Popless" at The AV Club but on stuff I don't have and never really want to. You know, really get INSIDE the overly emotional, slick, LCD-oriented faux-'quality' pop rock I rarely hear due to not listening to commercial radio or having cable. Who knows? Maybe a wealthy enemy of mine might actually pay to drive me insane that way some day ...

The funny thing about all this is, I have, for lack of a better term, a total boner for Top 40 hits and the process of making pop music. Some of my friends give me crap for it or just don't understand it, but I feel like I've pulled a full 360, from loving it without understanding the process, to rebelling against it with punk, to getting over punk and easing into indie, to reaching for indie's roots in classic folk and rock, to going back to pop music and appreciating on a much higher level. Sure, most of the artists don't write their own songs anymore, but someone does, and that someone is a lot richer than you.

You know, interesting you should bring this up, because I too have the tendency to avoid big buzz things, but not bands--movies is my thing. And I find my avoidance towards movies with much hype tends to be correct. For example, take that bore "Napoleon Dynamite." Boy oh boy did it get much hype, especially from my sister who took me to see it on her fourth out of eight times in the theater (!!!!) While she was laughing her head off, she turns to me and asks, "Why aren't you laughing?!?" Uh, because I'm waiting for the movie to be funny?

Not to sound like an asshole, but I was thinking about trends which tend to be "hip", especially in the younger music loving crowds. I determined most people are simple minded, thus why simple things tend to really take off. Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes. Which would explain why bands who are considered by music snobs to have "no talent" go mainstream, while bands who's musicians are totally talented and music is multi-layered and complex don't hit as big. It's not a rule of thumb, just generally how it runs.

Which would explain why bands who are considered by music snobs to have "no talent" go mainstream, while bands who's musicians are totally talented and music is multi-layered and complex don't hit as big. It's not a rule of thumb, just generally how it runs.

It's funny how this wasn't the case for artists of the 60's & 70's. Yeah there's other great old stuff out there, but I've done a lot of digging and found I like older "mainstream" consistently better. Even Velvet Underground had a chance taken on them with a big label.

Big labels have just dumbed down the process of finding artists to take risks on. They want an easy route to easy money. It's not about the music anymore, and I have stacks of records that say it sure as hell used to be,

"They want an easy route to easy money..."

TOTALLY agree.

the reason most of those mainstream artists from the 60's and 70's are considered better is because they didn't write the songs. it hasn't been about talent in a long time; it's about the songwriting.

the talented artists of yesterday are the studio musicians of today. i've known people who received performance degrees from Eastman, etc. who were in some of the worst bands i can remember-they could play but they couldn't write for shit. going out to shows i see plenty of bands that are talented and can play their instruments but if you can't write a song what's the use?

as radiohead said: "anyone can play guitar."

I guess I meant 60's & 70's rock when it came to writing their own stuff. Last time I checked most great rock/folk artists from that generation have their songs credited to them OR are covers of other great artists.

Reed, Bowie, Plant, Dylan, Wilson, Lennon/McCartney...

The list goes on and on.