stupid rant #2
Being somewhat involved in the “music scene,” I find myself having many ignorant, elitist philosophies, especially when it comes to “local bands.” In the college radio world, I generally define the term “local band” as “kinda sucky, but hey, you should play them and support this community we’re all a part of.” Not that I don’t wholeheartedly enjoy my share of local bands, mind you. It’s just that a local band doesn’t have to blow me away for me to appreciate them: I recognize the fact that there are bands trying to do their thing without the support networks more popular groups have. Regardless of the music, I’m more willing to help out bands in this situation, especially if they’re non-egomaniacal, neighborly folks (of course, I don’t ever have any money, but I do what I can). I think most people tend to ignore all this stuff, and want the music to speak for itself. Which is fine.
When a band becomes reasonably successful, gets (inter)national attention, and starts playing the majority of their shows out of town, is it really accurate to call them a local band? Nowadays, when people refer to Deerhoof, or even Rogue Wave or the Gris Gris as “local bands,” it kinda bugs me. It’s not that I’m jealous of these bands’ success, or think they’re unworthy of the “local” association. Quite the opposite! I’m happy for all those bands, and they deserve all the praise they get.
I guess what it boils down to is the person applying the term in the first place. “Local band” for them seems to mean “I ignored (or didn’t even know about) this band for years until I saw them reviewed on Pitchfork (or whatever national forum dictates my taste in music), but since I happen to live in the same town I’m going to try and make myself look cool and involved in the local music scene!” To these people I would say this: the local music scene is not cool, being involved in it doesn’t make you cool, and simply pretending to be involved in it in order to look cool makes me think less of you. A given scene will yield very few amazing bands. Please do not look up a few monuments in the travel guide then call yourself a regional expert.
When a band becomes reasonably successful, gets (inter)national attention, and starts playing the majority of their shows out of town, is it really accurate to call them a local band? Nowadays, when people refer to Deerhoof, or even Rogue Wave or the Gris Gris as “local bands,” it kinda bugs me. It’s not that I’m jealous of these bands’ success, or think they’re unworthy of the “local” association. Quite the opposite! I’m happy for all those bands, and they deserve all the praise they get.
I guess what it boils down to is the person applying the term in the first place. “Local band” for them seems to mean “I ignored (or didn’t even know about) this band for years until I saw them reviewed on Pitchfork (or whatever national forum dictates my taste in music), but since I happen to live in the same town I’m going to try and make myself look cool and involved in the local music scene!” To these people I would say this: the local music scene is not cool, being involved in it doesn’t make you cool, and simply pretending to be involved in it in order to look cool makes me think less of you. A given scene will yield very few amazing bands. Please do not look up a few monuments in the travel guide then call yourself a regional expert.