What Does Mike V Think Of...

...The 1990s Revival

In this installment of "What Does Mike V Think Of...," I ask The Everymen frontman his opinion on the recent revival of the sounds of the 1990s.

I was in my twenties during the 90s, so they represent an important time in music for me. As a result, I find myself having to be careful in determining whether I like some new sounds because they're good or because they remind me of the past. Mike does have a way of putting things into perspective.

CDM: I think it's safe to say that we're in the midst of a 1990s revival. There's a big movement going on the lo-fi side of things; and at the rockier end, bands are drawing on influences like Dinosaur Jr, My Bloody Valentine, Smashing Pumpkins, and -- especially -- early Weezer. It seems like there is some new, shoegaze, grunge, or sludge (all usually adding "-pop") band popping up every day.

So, what do you think of the 1990s revival? What do you think of nostalgia in music, in general?

MV: In the same way that I'm wary of reunions (Find a new fucking band to like, man. There are so many out there. And they could probably use the money more than Kevin Shields.) I'm always very wary of trend revivalists. It speaks to a certain malaise of its creators, but most importantly the music has no room to evolve. Music evolves because of people thinking outside of the box and people pushing limits and testing boundaries. Elvis becomes The Beatles. The Beatles become Led Zeppelin. Zep becomes Television. Television becomes The Pixies. The Pixies become Nirvana and on and on and on and you get the idea. But if people are out there, creating a style of music that has already lived out its shelf life, then what more could they possibly do to further that genre? Probably not much. We already know exactly where punk rock ends. And that's ok because there are myriad reasons genres come and go. It's the beautiful life cycle of music. It's a living thing and to be kept alive it needs to adapt. So maybe I'm just saying that, in a way, trend revivalists are killing music. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm saying. But maybe I do.

I think -- other than that whole disastrous glam revival of the early-aughts (SEE ALSO, but avoid at all costs: The Darkness, Jet, Velvet Revolver) which I wholeheartedly consider the worst thing to happen to music since Otis's plane went down -- that this 90s fuzz nostalgia is fucking lame. It just rings so incredibly false and hollow, and what is most egregious is the complete lack of songcraft in this new fuzzy generation. Pavement could write the fuck out of a song. Dino Jr could write the fuck out of a song. MBV and Eric's Trip could write the fuck out of a song. The fuzz and the lo-fi nature of the recordings was a reflection of where these bands and labels found themselves at the time. Surely you recently saw Nirvana's first contract make the net rounds. $600 from Sub Pop. Six hundred dollars. You can't make In Utero for six hundred dollars. But you can make Bleach. And while those sonics may have been an artistic choice to some extent, they were more a reflection of the environmental constraints that forced bands like Archers Of Loaf to make Icky Mettle sound like Icky Mettle. So this new batch of post-SST slackers are taking their cues from that seminal time in rock history, and dressing up their mediocre tunes in walls of fuzz and scuzz, but most of them are forgetting to take the time to write the goddamned songs.

So, while I do get some kicks from some of those fuzzy revivalists (actually pretty much just Milk Music), I really can't wait for it to be the new 2000s again. The world could use another Interpol. But hopefully not another Darkness.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks, again, Mike.

To Mike's mention of Milk Music, I'll add California X and Waxahatchee, among others, as some 1990s-influenced acts who are really bringing the songs along with the sounds.

The 2012 album, Hot Cakes, by The Darkness is available now in all the usual places.