I think the last 14 months has seen the arrival of acts hyped to be the “next big thing” and seen them whittle away almost as quickly as they arrived. When I was a little bit younger then I am now and NME put a band on the cover and told the world that this was the “next big thing”, it tended to mean something. I am going back to the days of Suede and Radiohead or even the Longpigs when they first arrived (though on this occasion, though brilliant, the Longpigs didn’t last). Now refer to recent acts which have been hyped up to take on the mantle as our new darlings of rock/pop/indie/alt – So hail the Kaiser Chiefs, The Killers, The Strokes, Artic Monkeys, Hard-Fi, Kubb, The Dears, Bloc Party and that’s just to name a few. Una Mulally has written a piece in the topic section about the possibility that The Artic Monkeys have peaked to early. I don’t believe that they even had the chance to peak, let alone have the dust settle. We are in the middle of what I would call a Mass Production of acts. Due to the record industries (reluctant) embrace of the Internet & IPOD’s and downloads now recognized as chart entrants, there is more pressure on them to sell to us quickly without giving us that much time for thought. In other words, we are bombarded with almost a new act every two months which has been hyped up to be of genuine quality and “could be massive” stardom and in most cases, have ceased to be talked about 2 months later. For acts like the Killers and The Strokes the dust has settled to a certain degree but how many of us would fall to our knees in tears should the Killers break up tomorrow? If the Artic Monkeys never released another record would we be disappointed? Is their music THAT cutting edge that it provides us with something to get seriously excited about? Are the Kaiser Chiefs not just another (admittedly socially conscious) modernized Blur and the Employment album simply represents another form of ParkLife? In answer to a question from Binokular, certain acts which are, in my opinion, of a much higher quality yet have been somewhat ignored by the media (I stress media, not the in-the-know Muso’s populating this chat board). Acts such as Sigur Ros (though it is improving) and Architecture in Helsinki are again, in my opinion, acts worthy of lavished praise and have music with substance as opposed to music that connects instantly with the brain and leaves just as quick. All said, the arrival of Interpol, Editors (who have for me, taken Joy Division and improved the script immensely) and Arcade Fire have given hope to the fact that there are people out there who can provide us with music which we need, understand, would miss if it was not there and most importantly, ANTICIPATE future releases with streaks of eager impatient finger tapping. It’s late and I am tired and hope I have not waffled too much and some of this makes sense to someone!

I'm an idiot but from my perspective theres one word that makes sense for an industry selling any product to such a large market of people: diversification. Take an extreme music industry example that would explain why this is the case: axl rose whittling away millions of dollars on Chineese Democracy. In the past, depending on a a small stable of artists was profitable. But, if you can have a larger stable, then one of the acts becoming unprofitable wont affect your overall profit margins. I still love alot of new music that comes out on majors, but most of it is corporate art that reminds me of those pictures in reception areas of financial institutions and doctors offices. You know, patronising sh1te like! :) But you have to really look at sites like this and free mp3's (from LEGIMATE SOURCES OBVIOUSLY) to get the quality stuff. Most metal and general music magazines seem to be over-reliant on advertising from the companies promoting the bands they are reviewing and interviewing. Its all a bit Orson freekin' Wells man! There are exceptions to every idiots theory so take a shot if you disagree, or just take a shot cos you can!

There has always been an obsession of sorts with the newest, most exciting band (e.g. The Beatles, Oasis, The Ramones etc) and I think that will live on for a long time to come. Over the last year or so, it does seem that alot of newer bands are getting floods of attention that they maybe don't deserve (e.g. Babyshambles). And mutch is right in a way about it being corporate tactics. But the record companies wouldn't launch a band so heavily if they do it wasn't going to make a dent in their sales. Having the band's song feature in a movie or TV show, gracing the cover of magazines like NME, getting regular hits on their MySpace page and touring early (either support slots, mini tours or under merged tours) is all part of the consumption that is lapped up by music fans nowadays. Record companies exploit it because the mass public want it. The more they want, the more the band will be over-hyped and over-played on setlists. A question to derive from this thread could be 'Are older bands trying to captialise on the effects of the hype-machine?'. I'm thinking of Blondie, Gang Of Four, Pixies etc - the type of bands who have been mentioned as influences by the new acts cropping up. Some might say that if Bloc Party are ripping off Gang Of Four riffs then surely the older band are due some exposure and compensation of sorts. But it's a case of all types of bands getting involved with the hype-machine that is currently in full throttle. But I do take on the point that too many bands are getting undeserved credit. Although, for every The Cribs there is an Editors.