The Strokes

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrBrau1

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
10,436
Location
Verplexed in Vermont
These guys are one of the most hated bands in the NYC indie scene. If I even try to mention them to a friend he throws me looks that kill. Why you ask? Rich kid playing rock star.

The singers dad runs Elite Modeling agency. Translate this into the fact they're LOADED. Work to pay for rent? How will we pay for studio time? No problem, I'm a millionaire. They used their CASH to pay for Nirvana's former publicist. They were getting press write-ups before they even recorded a demo. Again, CASH, not talent saves their day. I've also heard the guitarist's father was a producer for the Stones? Man, these guys had an up hill battle! I've actually seen the bass player get mocked on the street by other NYC musicians. It's fing funny how much these guys are hated.
 
I love The Strokes, and that's all I'm going to say. I could really care less about Julian's father so long as the music makes me happy - and it does.
 
I contrast it to Bono's speach at Slane, thanking each family for lending 500 pounds. The band came from somewhere. The Strokes were kids playing w/ their trust fund, I just can't respect that. If the music weren't so average i'd feel different.
 
I think it might not be fair to the band to assume things that the media has hinted at. We have no proof that each band member has $millions in their respective bank accounts just because their parents had money. Having parents with money doesn't make you an idiot, any less hardworking, or any less talented. You'd be surprised at how many well-respected bands come from moneyed background. Yeah - the Strokes were well-educated, but so were the guys in Interpol - and to my knowledge, they get lots of respect. As for the NYC underground - so much of that is populated with moneyed pretentious hipsters, I wouldn't even know how to begin to pick apart the poor hipsters from the rich ones.

Average music? Are you greatly familiar with The Strokes's debut album, and their newer material? I can see if musically it wasn't your thing - but this is a very exciting band within the rock world. I saw them live, and to see the reaction of the fans and each person in the crowd - it was as if The Beatles had just walked on stage by the degree of hysteria this band produces (and this was not a teenybopper audience).
 
It's all pretty well know, from local sources, not the media. I just can't respect the rich kid who wasn't REALLY taking a risk. I've had the record for a long time now, good for a listen or two, but future of rock? If I wanna hear the same thing done well I play the Velvet Underground. Thankfully, their next album will tank as NME moves on to it's latest flavor of the month.

PS-This is how you tell who NYC rich hipster and who's working class:

Working Class-Already own all that VINTAGE clothing, it's actually their clothes.

NYC Hipster-Buys it at a "vintage" clothing store in SOHO.
 
By all means, I don't think they are the future of rock - but I won't count them out just yet for being a really cool band. I've known quite a few rich kids who've taken risks and failed, I've known quite a few who succeeded, and I've known quite a few who did nothing but live on the interests accrued in their bank accounts...The point is, that I don't really judge, because it's not possible for me to know the real truth. Poor hipsters can make pretty shitty music too. I don't see how lack of money/too much money can dictate talent or relevance.

Look at today's popular music - these people pay top dollah to get the hit producers to overbloat the same ole tested formulas - and it all sounds chopped up and trashy with no emotion. Sure, it's not fair that the Strokes didn't spend their hard-earned on their first guitar - but that doesn't mean they came out of the womb knowing how to play, either. Their music isn't brilliant and neither are they - but no manner of hype or hypertension about them will quell my adoration for this band and how they make me feel.

NME is a drama queen.
 
It really isn't fair to hold the wealth of a parent against a kid.

Leona Naess catches shit a lot because her father is a shipping magnate and her stepmother used to be Diana Ross. Some people say that she hasn't really lived life or had enough life experiences because of that.

Don't judge a book by its cover.
 
I by no means think a rich person can't be talented. What it does do is take the RISK out of being an artist, and the hardship as well. I've seen bands grub for gas and food $, live in the same apartment, spend rent money on studio time and sweat out evictions, all in the name of their art. The Strokes never had to worry about this. Rent? what's that? Record a demo? don't worry about the $, we've got it. Record company contacts? don't worry, my dad knows people.
 
MrBrau1 said:
I by no means think a rich person can't be talented. What it does do is take the RISK out of being an artist, and the hardship as well. I've seen bands grub for gas and food $, live in the same apartment, spend rent money on studio time and sweat out evictions, all in the name of their art. The Strokes never had to worry about this. Rent? what's that? Record a demo? don't worry about the $, we've got it. Record company contacts? don't worry, my dad knows people.

I've got Leona Naess's first record, and I like it.

 
I just don't see what the point is...whether they had to struggle or not. I mean, yeah...I know that there are some pretty cool stories for musicians who overcame financial hardships (among others) to rise to success, but...hey...talent is talent.
 
Bonochick said:
I just don't see what the point is...whether they had to struggle or not. I mean, yeah...I know that there are some pretty cool stories for musicians who overcame financial hardships (among others) to rise to success, but...hey...talent is talent.

You see no difference between Do It Yourself and dad paying for it all?
 
Last edited:
MrBrau1 said:

You see no difference between Do It Yourself and dad paying for it all?

If you have the resources available, lucky you. If not...and you have to really work for it...the success may seem sweeter and more satisfying to the musician. To me as a listener though, it really doesn't make much of a difference.
 
All I have to say is, if you look at the emergence of rock music... most early bands had a large influence from Art schools. Some of the most celebrated bands in history, both artistically and commercially, had members who went to these institutions... the Beatles, the Who, Queen, Led Zeppelin, etc. I'm willing to bet that some of these guys were funded by more than just average side jobs.

You can't measure credibility exclusively by family income. At some point your hypocrisy would be overwhelming, where your considerations for high esteem would be as arbitrary as a Rolling Stone hotlist. It's more valuable to look at how humble the artist is... if they came from a vantage of low recognition and built themselves up, as opposed to having a veteran publicist (like MrBrau says) which exposed them to immediate success. Credibility is best viewed through the degree of modesty in their artistic background, as opposed to their financially privileged upbringing.
 
Last edited:
Bonochick said:


If you have the resources available, lucky you. If not...and you have to really work for it...the success may seem sweeter and more satisfying to the musician. To me as a listener though, it really doesn't make much of a difference.

To me this is the difference between passion and hobby. The Stokes can never say "we played like our lives depended on it."
Once I know this stuff, the tone of the music changes for me, how can it not?

It's also because I've played in the clubs they played, as have lots of my friends. We've slaved away to record 3 song demos, or begged to get any kind of press. Dad writes a check and they're off, while the rest of us struggle to get by. I REFUSE to belive it's due to talent, I know that's not true. There are bands 10x better than the Strokes slaving away in those NYC clubs, but you'll never hear of them cause they couldn't afford a publicist.
 
Last edited:
I guess for me, I don't believe I have any place to judge someone's worthiness. There are plenty of people who are overnight stars who are worthy, and there are plenty of good bands who really toil - in the end, it is the luck of the draw - and I for one, will not miss out on what The Strokes has to offer musically because some members were born with a golden spoon in their hands.

I've heard more shitty bands who have toiled then I care to mention. I tend to think alot of bands think they have more merit musically and talent-wise bc they have struggled - I just don't agree with them.

I really doubt members of The Velvet Underground toiled for years in shitty dive bars before they magically hooked up with uber-star Andy Warhol who magically opened up many doors for them.
 
Oh, I'm fucking jaded. The music business is a cesspool.

There was a band in the UK a few years back-GayDay.

The singer was a musicwriter who wanted to see if he could simply "hype" his band into existense. Well, he did. They played a few shows, got LOTS of press, record deal, whole nine yards. They've never been heard from since. That's kinda how I view the Strokes.
 
Last edited:
Pinball Wizard said:
All I have to say is, if you look at the emergence of rock music... most early bands had a large influence from Art schools. Some of the most celebrated bands in history, both artistically and commercially, had members who went to these institutions... the Beatles, the Who, Queen, Led Zeppelin, etc. I'm willing to bet that some of these guys were funded by more than just average side jobs.

You can't measure credibility exclusively by family income. At some point your hypocrisy would be overwhelming, where your considerations for high esteem would be as arbitrary as a Rolling Stone hotlist. It's more valuable to look at how humble the artist is... if they came from a vantage of low recognition and built themselves up, as opposed to having a veteran publicist (like MrBrau says) which exposed them to immediate success. Credibility is best viewed through the degree of modesty in their artistic background, as opposed to their financially privileged upbringing.

Well said.
 
Getting big in the music industry is purely a combination of luck and circumstance. The talent is in staying there.

Sounds to me like The Strokes were extra lucky, just like every other breakout indie rock act since Nirvana.
 
my only gripe about The Strokes (and The White Stripes for that matter) is that I think it was all done better by the Oblivians and Jon Spencer Blues Explosion

I really don't care whether someone had to slave for their music or not
 
brettig said:
Getting big in the music industry is purely a combination of luck and circumstance. The talent is in staying there.

Sounds to me like The Strokes were extra lucky, just like every other breakout indie rock act since Nirvana.

:up:

As much as I'd like to bash the Strokes without relent, it's probably better to wait and see what they develop into. Will they have staying power, or will the image-driven band fade away like so many others?
 
Honestly, getting into the entertainment industry, or any industry really, has a lot to do with 'who you know'. I have a hard time disliking The Strokes just because they got into the music industry because they had a connection. If I did that, I'd have to judge all my friends and relatives who got their respective jobs because of a connection in the same way.

I personally have no problem with it, they have a lot of fans who like what they're doing and that's great. Different 'Strokes' for different folks. :up:
 
ps salome, i will always agree with you about jsbx - they should have been HUGE

I stayed away from the Strokes (and all of those other "The" bands) initially, simply because of all the hype surrounding them in the early part of last year. But, once I sat and listened to the music, I changed my tune, so to speak. For me, actually hearing the music behind all of that attitude made all the difference, because it was actually good.

So what if their daddys are rich? :sexywink:
 
Last edited:
the way i see it is that all the money in the world can't make a shit band sell albums and be well liked. if someone gave me millions of dollars to promote myself as a singer (i couldn't carry a tune in a bucket BTW) it doesn't mean that i'll be the next big thing in nme and will be nominated for a grammy next year.

the strokes are good....a bit overrated but who isn't nowadays. money and connections may make things a bit easier in getting into the business but it sure as hell doesn't keep you there...just look at kelly osbourne :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom