Gramsci wrote:

rachael wrote:So, the fucked up, sexist industry may look at more than one woman in the same place at the same time playing music as a novelty, but that doesn't mean you have to.

The only reason anyone pays attention is because they are all women. Ask a simple question: if it was all guys would most people that like them, still like them?

It looks like you're determined to pick a fight regardless. If you can't see that in the music biz "all-girl" is a marketing pitch, you obivous know nothing about the industry. Try looking at every press release and review, I'll bet money that every single one makes issue with the gender of the group...

But somehow I'm sure you'll find room to point this back at me.

It would be really nice if those who proclaimed themselves to be above the marketing pitch didn't use it when attempting to discuss the actual merits/lack of merits of certain music.

Hey, you said it, I didn't. My point is that it wasn't necessary for you to use this "marketing pitch" as a reason for not enjoying the music of this band. If you would've left their gender out of it, you wouldn't be having this problem. Um...and it IS a problem.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just feel pretty strongly about the fact that, in this forum at least, this kind of gender stigmatizing is totally unnecessary. It does nothing but detract from the real discussion. I pretty much respect the majority of my peers here, and would expect that they'd be "above" this baseless industry bullshit.

You included. Which is why I take issue with your statement blah blah.

rachael wrote:It would be really nice if those who proclaimed themselves to be above the marketing pitch didn't use it when attempting to discuss the actual merits/lack of merits of certain music.

Hey, you said it, I didn't. My point is that it wasn't necessary for you to use this "marketing pitch" as a reason for not enjoying the music of this band. If you would've left their gender out of it, you wouldn't be having this problem. Um...and it IS a problem.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just feel pretty strongly about the fact that, in this forum at least, this kind of gender stigmatizing is totally unnecessary. It does nothing but detract from the real discussion. I pretty much respect the majority of my peers here, and would expect that they'd be "above" this baseless industry bullshit.

You included. Which is why I take issue with your statement blah blah.

i think the point by gramsci is totally valid

(i haven't heard a note of electrelane, so i have no opinion on their music)

gramsci did regard their music in musical terms, though he dispensed with it almost immediately. he thinks it is trivial and unenlightening. i understood that the first time through.

i also understand that, when faced with inexplicable enthusiasm for something you find uncompelling, you begin to root around for a reason that someone else might be enthusiastic about this thing. and it is in that rooting-around that he made his conjecture about the band's status as attractive women vs. their status if they were in fact not attractive women.

they are attractive women. i think this fact is more or less indisputable. and to pretend that it is irrelevant is like pretending that interpol would be just as successful in flannel, birkenstocks, and shoulder-length hair.

perhaps their gender and good looks work against them in some ways, in some circles, but i have a hard time believing that these attributes aren't a net plus among members of their easily graspable audience. whatever the quality of their music. and i think it is fine to point that out.

tmidgett wrote:.....i think it is fine to point that out.

Well it bugs the shit out of me.

My only problem was with Gramsci's original post, and having read the rest of the comments now I'd say my reaction was more against the tone. This was the emphatic nature in stating that a.) they were not good but popular and b.) this means that they must be popular due to their being a female band.

Having read the other arguments, I'll grudgingly admit that my first reaction may be a little prissy. The novelty factor exists, though I don't rate it as influential as previous posters have.

However, I do find it a shame that this dismissal could be used by anyone against any all-women band, whilst an analogue would not so readily be used against an all-male band. You might have a point, but surely it'd be better just to lay into the music? The less people mention the composition of the band, the more likely it will no longer be seen as a novelty. It must be pretty frustrating to be seen as a novelty band through no fault of your own.

PS Rimbaud III, what are saying about my gae music?

sparky wrote:PS Rimbaud III, what are saying about my gae music?

Honest guv, I ditn't say a fing. I quite like Electrelane. They're not as good as Wilson Phillips though.

Rimbaud III wrote: They're not as good as Wilson Phillips though.

Who is?

Just clarify something for me. Is it the style of music you hate or the way they play it?

Mark wrote:Is it the style of music you hate or the way they play it?

Oh, they're just a bunch of chicks, does it really matter?

I will form my opinion of Electrelane's live musics on:



*cough*sorry*cough*

June 10th. Empty Bottle.

sparky wrote:However, I do find it a shame that this dismissal could be used by anyone against any all-women band, whilst an analogue would not so readily be used against an all-male band. You might have a point, but surely it'd be better just to lay into the music? The less people mention the composition of the band, the more likely it will no longer be seen as a novelty. It must be pretty frustrating to be seen as a novelty band through no fault of your own.

all-male bands are crushingly common

i think all-female bands will be considered a novelty until they aren't a novelty. as it is, they are still something of a novelty, meaning somewhat rare. they are less of a novelty than they were ten years ago, and they were less of a novelty then than they were ten years before that.

put it this way: does anyone consider the female bass player a novelty anymore? no. in 1982, sara lee and kim gordon were novelties. kim deal, mo herman...not as much. nowadays, you can't walk through a decent record store without bumping into a woman who plays bass. i don't think too many people make a big deal out of it at this late date.