Page 6 of 7

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 08:39
by humblebee
I dunno Sandy... there just seems something very calculated and set-piece about this. Right, we need to progress our career by distancing ourselves from that scene; what's the most efficient way to do it? It makes me think of the schoolkid who hasn't got any other mates so they hang out with the nerdy kids, and then try and ingratiate themselves with the cool kids by ripping the piss out of their erstwhile nerdy friends. I wish I were sophisticated enough to find it funny but several days later I'm still angry.

Some might find the idea that indiepop matters a ridiculous one. But I think indiepop matters and I'm not going to be apologetic for that. What we're doing is the greatest fun, but it's not a game.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 09:13
by linus
what you don't get in that interview is what the writer leaves out, he may have been really pushing for some criticism of 'the scene' and they may have relented eventually with what was published... that's all speculation, but the idea of a journo kicking off with 'so, you're indiepop, that's a bit sad, isn't it?' and just pushing from there doesn't seem so unlikely and then cutting all the lead up to the prize comments also not so unlikely

not that I'm defending the band, I'm largely ambivalent, loved the last lp, quite like the new one, never saw anything to make me think the band are going to be cheerleaders for indiepop, never assumed they saw themselves as part of the scene

have they piggybacked indiepop to get where they are? well, it seems a rather foolhardy strategy. if one was that desperate to get on there are more tried and tested means of doing so.

the history of independent pop, whether it be C86, cutie, jangle, twee, indiepop or whatever, is littered with bands who have chosen to disassociate themselves from whatever the prevailing scene might be at the time... some of the most feted names in la pop indie really didn't care to be lumped into the movement, viewing it as restrictive and reductive and self-defeating

I'm not worried about that stool pigeon interview but then I'd never seen anything- beyond the music the band made- to saddle them with my own lofty expectations

if it was pete dale saying those things I'd be distraught, as it's veronica falls I'm just 'ho hum... nevermind...'

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 09:32
by indiansummer
i'm not sure they were hanging with the nerdy kids in the first place. to expand the metaphor for daftness' sake, i think they just looked like the nerdy kids, so everyone assumed they were also nerdy kids, and now they're like, 'well, we never really understood why everyone thought we were nerdy kids in the first place, we just happened to wear the same glasses'

that's all guesswork; i don't know the people involved but i'm pretty sure VF were pretty darn 'industry' in the first place (let's look again at the label they opted to sign with) and the hallowed stage of indietracks was actually just another festival to them

i wonder how much of this anger is the problem with projecting indiepop expectations onto the band, without actually knowing whether that was what they wanted in the first place

biting the hand that feeds still seems a bit shitty, obviously, but otherwise this seems a bit like when indie bands sign to majors and half their fanbase goes, 'SELLOUTS! signing to a major like that, boo, boo' and the band's all 'erm, excuse me, i think you'll find we've never ever hinted that we wouldn't sign to a major, i'm not sure whose principles we're selling out on here except for ones you've invented for us'

(unless someone has proof that VF used to declare themselves indiepop as fuck and loved indietracks and stuff, in which case i'll sheepishly wipe the egg off my face and shurrup)





hey, wait, we're the nerdy kids?

school never fucking ends

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 09:34
by humblebee
You make some good points Andy - it does read like the writer is complicit and my initial dismay when reading the piece was partly because we tend to expect better from Stool Pigeon. Likewise, I've always thought VF were a good band rather than building them up into saviours... but I'm still annoyed, so maybe given that Pete Dale hypothesis I'd have been actually going postal. :)

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 09:50
by Trev
indiansummer wrote:i'm not sure they were hanging with the nerdy kids in the first place. to expand the metaphor for daftness' sake, i think they just looked like the nerdy kids, so everyone assumed they were also nerdy kids, and now they're like, 'well, we never really understood why everyone thought we were nerdy kids in the first place, we just happened to wear the same glasses'

that's all guesswork; i don't know the people involved but i'm pretty sure VF were pretty darn 'industry' in the first place (let's look again at the label they opted to sign with) and the hallowed stage of indietracks was actually just another festival to them

i wonder how much of this anger is the problem with projecting indiepop expectations onto the band, without actually knowing whether that was what they wanted in the first place

biting the hand that feeds still seems a bit shitty, obviously, but otherwise this seems a bit like when indie bands sign to majors and half their fanbase goes, 'SELLOUTS! signing to a major like that, boo, boo' and the band's all 'erm, excuse me, i think you'll find we've never ever hinted that we wouldn't sign to a major, i'm not sure whose principles we're selling out on here except for ones you've invented for us'
That's pretty much what I thought. They were always outside of the bubble. They never actively sort to be in the bubble. Sure their comments are daft and that, but I can't get worked up about it. I like both their records, that's enough for me.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:11
by RITH
crystalball wrote:For me it is not even so much because of the self-hating thing (which is disingenuous, as everard pointed out - plus: TOTALLY INDIEPOP!) but mostly because of their dissing of gigs in York, Sheffield, Wrexham or whatever - and the implication that unless a gig is packed, it's basically not worth doing. That's just a very a shit thing to say in an interview. The people who went along to see them and the promoters could be reading that. It's a shit thing to say.
Here´s what was actually said:
However, a discussion about worst gig locations suggests they don’t find themselves so comfortable everywhere.

Doyle: “York.”

Clifford: “Or Sheffield?”

Hoare: “York.”

Herbain: “It was a terrible venue, no one came, horrible sound. Wrexham was probably second.”

Doyle: “It’s just not a very nice place…”

Clifford: “Italy hasn’t been that great for us. It’s got a bit of a strange live music scene. They have huge nightclubs, and then people play and it just feels really disparate. It’s just not what we’re used to. I’m sure we’ll play a good show there soon…”

Herbain: “I think generally we’d rather play smaller venues and have them packed. It’s more intimate than just playing big, soulless venues.”
When I'm asked a question like that ("What was the worst gig ever?"), I think 'no one came, horrible sound' are valid reasons to not have very fond memories of that gig. I don't think they imply at all that "unless a gig is packed, it's basically not worth doing." The only thing they say is that in Italy they played in very big venues they didn't manage to fill up. Compared to that, they'd rather put that same amount of people in a smaller venue, so it's packed. Which makes sense to me.

And when they speak of 'C86', I wouldn't equal that with 'indiepop' at all. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't say that I'm a big fan of 'C86', while I adore indiepop. C86 impies the retro side of things, going back to the sound of 1986. Indiepop is a vary varied and alive genre RIGHT NOW.
“It seems like a little bit of a flippant, throwaway genre,” expands Clifford (…) Of course, much like people rarely describe themselves as chavs or hipsters, you imagine not many bands would be keen on describing themselves as C86.

“Well, they would,” says Clifford, “but they’d be rubbish.”

Doyle agrees. “They’d probably dress like children. It’s just a bit creepy… like Peter Pan or something.”
They don't need to say that. But I assume they'd like to see themselves as a RIGHT NOW band. This is not offending Indietracks or indiepop in my opinion. They seem to be more speaking of a hypothetical band here. And here the interviewer definitely already suggests a lot to them. I may be missing the point completely, and perhaps they hate all of you/us, but I'm happy to believe otherwise.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:41
by everard
i think veronica falls are in a funny position where they have proper management (wichita), booking agents and stuff, and probably (mostly) deal with for-profit promoters and try to make being a full-time band financially viable but without being famous and successful enough to be super-comfortable. a more precarious existence than a diy band where band members usually have day jobs. that makes musicians look at shows differently, and without the same kind of emotional connection to a scene.

as individuals they definitely have strong diy connections, just not to indiepop.

the stuff they said in the interview is not really that bad. also, boycotters, i own four versions of the new album. you need to start actively shoplifting copies.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:49
by stolenwine
a fog of ideas wrote:
if it was pete dale saying those things I'd be distraught, as it's veronica falls I'm just 'ho hum... nevermind...'
pretty much this. if it was someone like pete dale saying this, i'd probably feel kind of disappointed too (though again, i think there are worse things a band can say) but since i don't think veronica falls are really part of or try to be part of the indiepop scene, i don't think what they said is really a huge deal.

and the thing is, they really aren't c86. i don't hear that in their music (maybe it's just me?) so it's not surprising they don't really want that label. and if that's not the type of music they like they're gonna be even more reluctant to be described that way. i didn't see them as saying the indiepop scene and everything it stands for is shit. but maybe i'm missing something?

unless you think the "it's creepy" comment was directed at everyone into indiepop? i didn't read it like that though.

anyway, i still wish i wasn't a nerdy kid and was cool enough to be in veronica falls! and had hair that good.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:55
by linus
C86 was only ever a tape, it was never a sound or a movement... it's become a very lazy description to use to describe a band's sound although I'd be up for listening to any band that ably managed to sound like every band on the compilation... C86 is about as helpful as 'twee'

I was reading another interview with VF where the journo went to great lengths to denigrate indiepop (more specifically 'twee') creating this apparently false argument that VF only ever get compared to the Shop Assistants and The Pastels (which is apparently a bad thing) and the band were asked to comment and said something along the lines of 'we're more influenced by bands from the '60s than bands from that era' and I thought, fair enough, but none of those bands from that period thought they'd created a sound anew, many were influenced by bands from the '60s and made no secret of it (like bobby gillespie saying if he ever saw bryan maclean from love in the street he'd ask him to fuck him right there and then)... it all just seemed a lot of stuff and nonsense and in this particular piece I'm referring to all down to the hang-ups of the journo than the band themselves, if they'd said 'we may get compared to those bands but that's probably because we draw on the same influences as they did', I'd think that was more accurate and honest and less some journo posturing and chivvying the band along to do likewise

but ultimately what does any of that fanny matter if the band have good hair?

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:02
by stolenwine
good hair is like, the most important thing.

anyway, aren't they friends with the pastels? i think they are. i bet stephen is about stephen pastel.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:13
by indiansummer
stolenwine wrote:i bet stephen is about stephen pastel.
i thought that

he's so dreamy

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:24
by RITH
And don't the Pastels hate the indiepop too? Everything sorted.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 12:36
by stolenwine
indiansummer wrote:
he's so dreamy
totes.

do people really read reviews and stuff?! i rarely ever do (unless they're on sam's or andy's blogs) and even more rarely in the mainstream press, unless it's out of curiosity. i guess the old "what are your influences, it sounds like x,y,z" is a standard interview question. like, they probably really ARE influenced more by 60s bands and maybe that's why they're a bit baffled when the only thing journalists see is "c86! twee!". i don't think they're even remotely twee, aside from some of the clothes they wear, which i guess is enough for some journalists to make that comparison. also, since twee has such bad connotations i can understand why they don't want to be lumped in with it.

it's funny eh, because it depends on the band. i'm not sure if this is the case anymore, but i know the pains were never shy about saying how influenced by indiepop they are and were never dismissive of the scene as far as i know, but they were a lot more involved in it than VF anyway.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 13:40
by Shaun A
VF are a good band but it's indiepop whether they think so or not. Like MBV pretending that their EP's on Kaleidoscope and Lazy had frequencies that 'purposely fucked up indie kids hearing' (anyone remember that interview?). I personally think they should go the whole hog and introduce that shuffly Madchester beat or do a record as ludicrous as 'Rocks' in order to lose the shambling tag like so many bands did to universal, unwavering shitness and varying levels of chart success.

PS: Simon Price
Image
"Hey kids, don't smoke pot, try some Dex Dexter"

PPS: It's still nice to think that indiepop is still more offensive than punk to some people.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 14:08
by indiansummer
Shaun A wrote:VF are a good band but it's indiepop whether they think so or not
so what is indiepop?

*legs it*

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 15:58
by bullyhuff
indiansummer wrote:(unless someone has proof that VF used to declare themselves indiepop as fuck and loved indietracks and stuff, in which case i'll sheepishly wipe the egg off my face and shurrup)

hey, wait, we're the nerdy kids?

school never fucking ends
While they didn't declare themselves indiepop as fuck, when I played with them at SXSW 2011 with Very Truly Yours I was talking to James and telling him how we were going to play at Indietracks that year, he told me they had a good time and we would too. I think they just don't want to be put in a box with the C86 label. It's obvious they have those influences when you hear them but also have so many other influences outside of indiepop as well.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 16:42
by crystalball
Shaun A wrote:PPS: It's still nice to think that indiepop is still more offensive than punk to some people.
Heh, yeah!

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 16:46
by shaved head thrills
RITH wrote:
crystalball wrote:For me it is not even so much because of the self-hating thing (which is disingenuous, as everard pointed out - plus: TOTALLY INDIEPOP!) but mostly because of their dissing of gigs in York, Sheffield, Wrexham or whatever - and the implication that unless a gig is packed, it's basically not worth doing. That's just a very a shit thing to say in an interview. The people who went along to see them and the promoters could be reading that. It's a shit thing to say.
Here´s what was actually said:
However, a discussion about worst gig locations suggests they don’t find themselves so comfortable everywhere.

Doyle: “York.”

Clifford: “Or Sheffield?”

Hoare: “York.”

Herbain: “It was a terrible venue, no one came, horrible sound. Wrexham was probably second.”

Doyle: “It’s just not a very nice place…”

Clifford: “Italy hasn’t been that great for us. It’s got a bit of a strange live music scene. They have huge nightclubs, and then people play and it just feels really disparate. It’s just not what we’re used to. I’m sure we’ll play a good show there soon…”

Herbain: “I think generally we’d rather play smaller venues and have them packed. It’s more intimate than just playing big, soulless venues.”
When I'm asked a question like that ("What was the worst gig ever?"), I think 'no one came, horrible sound' are valid reasons to not have very fond memories of that gig. I don't think they imply at all that "unless a gig is packed, it's basically not worth doing." The only thing they say is that in Italy they played in very big venues they didn't manage to fill up. Compared to that, they'd rather put that same amount of people in a smaller venue, so it's packed. Which makes sense to me.

And when they speak of 'C86', I wouldn't equal that with 'indiepop' at all. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't say that I'm a big fan of 'C86', while I adore indiepop. C86 impies the retro side of things, going back to the sound of 1986. Indiepop is a vary varied and alive genre RIGHT NOW.
“It seems like a little bit of a flippant, throwaway genre,” expands Clifford (…) Of course, much like people rarely describe themselves as chavs or hipsters, you imagine not many bands would be keen on describing themselves as C86.

“Well, they would,” says Clifford, “but they’d be rubbish.”

Doyle agrees. “They’d probably dress like children. It’s just a bit creepy… like Peter Pan or something.”
They don't need to say that. But I assume they'd like to see themselves as a RIGHT NOW band. This is not offending Indietracks or indiepop in my opinion. They seem to be more speaking of a hypothetical band here. And here the interviewer definitely already suggests a lot to them. I may be missing the point completely, and perhaps they hate all of you/us, but I'm happy to believe otherwise.
I don't find a lot of faults in what they said. I can see they stepped on a few toes, but it's better than if when asked that question they had just flat-out lied and said with a cheap grin "aw, no, we love all our gigs and fans!"

Something like that would put me off even more. I like to know that that they're human and judgmental and honest. And in terms of their comments re: c86. I'd read those as valid as I believe they are referring more to the crap usage of c86 as an influence and as a reference in modern indiepop, which I totally agree with. Any band self-described as c86 these days is a quick turn off. Same goes for a band that outwardly identifies as twee. Nope. No thanks.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 21:09
by Paul
I thought a few people on here might be interested in this. James from Veronica Falls has made us a mixtape for us at Scared To Dance. The songs on the podcast are those that inspired the making of their new album Waiting For Something to Happen. It’s a diverse mix including tracks from The Velvet Underground, Vic Godard, Big Star, Wreckless Eric, The Byrds, Television, Ramones, Brilliant Colors and The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band.

You can listen to it for free at http://www.mixcloud.com/ScaredToDance/s ... odcast-17/

It should give you a nice idea of the sort of thing James and Patrick from the band will be DJing our club night next Saturday.

Re: Veronica Falls

Posted: Sun Mar 03, 2013 01:10
by Colin
Can I just listen to Teenage forever? It's perfect. From the harmonies down to that little atonal solo at the very end.