Well I agree with tweeksie and Jen F really-I think we need to give the written press less of a role in any evaluation of how 'the comeback' is percieved-
Stay positive-I do think that unity is just a hard concept to get accross at the mo-not cool or something-and some people are more open to it than others.
Hopefully we'll get at least one brilliant Kula festival performance this summer(Guilfest)and it must follow that a new batch of converts will be created-remember its KS in their natural habitat-so they have an advantage! -and they're also great musicians with their own focal message-they'll make the some of the more current acts look like the shite they are!
Maybe then things will change-even a tiny bit of TV/radio coverage would be good wouldnt it-they so deserve it!
by the way sarah-you completely missed the point and your attitude speaks volumes-I challenge you to go and see Kula live and very loud -feel the vibe in person-you never know you may finally get the point then!!

I know for a fact that Sarah has seen KS on many many occasions...so while I may not agree with her, she has plenty on which to base her opinions.

Frankly, the advice to ignore the press with regards to KS is hardly going to make us all die of shock...we've been ignoring the uninformed, negative articles since 1999! KS are slowly creating a new fanbase for themselves, but it is likely to take time, and I doubt that they will ever be as big as they once were - but as long as they're happy, and their true fans are happy, then nothing else is that important, is it?

I get the impression that KS are well use to the constant cynicism they constantly meet amongst certain sections of the music press. That's why Strangefolk has been such a great album for them. They've been able to go ahead and do what they do without having to put up with the ill-informed nonsense that often passes for proper journalism -- as well as the industry pressures.

A more popular follow up however will none the less bring more attention on Crispian and the band but I think that they're now more mature and better equiped to deal with all that negative garbage with a wry smile

Band's and artists in general that have a message which carries meaning always leave themselves open to cynicism and ignorannce. I've always felt that Kula Shaker are children of the sixties trying to bring bring back some of what was so good about music then to the present day. and that was never going to be any task.

"It is as knights on a quest we must see ourselves, questing to bring the light back into this dark and desolate land."

I have to be honest, I'm in a bit of a quandary.
I first saw KS on The White Room before hearing them play Mark Radcliffe's Radio 1 show (I stayed up late one night to record them playing live, much to my ex-girlfriend's annoyance. That's why she became an ex). Finally, I got to see them at Manchester Academy just around the time of 'K'.
Having been there when they were at their height (i.e. V Festivals etc), I appreciate them even more this time around.
So what's my problem then?
Well, this time around, I'm part of a happy few who truly appreciate KS's special talent. I want everyone else to know about them too. But - and here's the crux - if the world discovers/re-discovers KS and they they become, say, U2-sized, this would mean trouble.
Just imagine gig tickets selling out in nano-seconds and then re-appearing on e-Bay at a hundred times their face value. Or Crispian Mills becoming some kind of Bono/God-like genius.
Mmmmm - how about we just keep it to ourselves?

Kula Shaker making a comeback to their previous heights would literally be the biggest comeback in the history of rock music.

I wouldn't worry about it happening, basically.

quote:

Originally posted by kgem:
by the way sarah-you completely missed the point and your attitude speaks volumes-I challenge you to go and see Kula live and very loud -feel the vibe in person-you never know you may finally get the point then!!

Yeah, as Exodia says I've seen Kula many many times since the reformation and I know many people around (and in) the band on a more personal level, though clearly we're not best mates or anything, so I have plenty contact with the band to go on. What exactly do you mean, my 'attitude speaks volumes'? A huge number of my friends are in bands, my ex is a composer, I see alot of new music and innovation and for the most part I don't see much in Kula's music. It simply doesn't challenge me, for me it's comfy blanket music. Totally subjective of course but then isn't music supposed to be?

"Innovation." Sure.

For what it's worth I don't think the rock / 'Indian music' crossover has been done very often and I think Kula really have pulled that off at times, the ultimate example as an extended piece of work being PPA. All of course with some great melodies, lyrics and technical sophistication (proficiency at their instruments within the pop music envelope).

As for today I think Strangefolk still stands out on the basis of its lyrical content, it's not world beating stuff but I think you would have to call it 'brave', not least in the light of the criticism it's received. That is, unless you agree with the sneering critics that it's just 6th form mumbo-jumbo.

For me though, and many, proficient high-quality rock (as long as it's got a slight edge or angle at least - provided here by Kula's Indian influence, unconventional lyricism, and revivalist tendencies) is not 'comfort blanket music'. It depends where you set the bar I suppose. I would rather listen to what I consider to be a 'successful' (in an artistic sense) rock album with just a slight edge than something that's more adventurous in form just for the sake of it.

quote:

Originally posted by 2-J:
I would rather listen to what I consider to be a 'successful' (in an artistic sense) rock album with just a slight edge than something that's more adventurous in form just for the sake of it.

Well it's not like I'm listening to random avant garde classical John Cage-esque stuff. Really I just find the repetitive nature of Kula rather comforting which is both a good and bad thing but I think the fact they aren't very new sounding is why people don't pay much attention. For me they're not very edgy. And there's not enough violin, but that's a side issue. Still I can easily name many bands/artists who I consider to be better than Kula, though I acknowledge the band to be individually musically talented.

quote:

Originally posted by Sarah:

Well it's not like I'm listening to random avant garde classical John Cage-esque stuff. Really I just find the repetitive nature of Kula rather comforting which is both a good and bad thing but I think the fact they aren't very new sounding is why people don't pay much attention. For me they're not very edgy. And there's not enough violin, but that's a side issue. Still I can easily name many bands/artists who I consider to be better than Kula, though I acknowledge the band to be individually musically talented.

Hmmm... I would hardly say the rock bands who do get attention these days are in any way moer innovative than Kula Shaker But I guess as someone who's favourite musical genre has often been blamed to be adventurous in form just for the sake of it I learned that as ridiculous as it may sound, these things are probably in the eye of the beholder too... no, Kula's music is not horribly complex, but I wouldn't dismiss it as simplistic either. And hey, they have a sense of humour!

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, Queen of Shrooms:

quote:

Originally posted by Sarah:

Well it's not like I'm listening to random avant garde classical John Cage-esque stuff. Really I just find the repetitive nature of Kula rather comforting which is both a good and bad thing but I think the fact they aren't very new sounding is why people don't pay much attention. For me they're not very edgy. And there's not enough violin, but that's a side issue. Still I can easily name many bands/artists who I consider to be better than Kula, though I acknowledge the band to be individually musically talented.

Hmmm... I would hardly say the rock bands who do get attention these days are in any way moer innovative than Kula Shaker But I guess as someone who's favourite musical genre has often been blamed to be adventurous in form just for the sake of it I learned that as ridiculous as it may sound, these things are probably in the eye of the beholder too... no, Kula's music is not horribly complex, but I wouldn't dismiss it as simplistic either. And hey, they have a sense of humour!

Absolutely, I don't think most rock bands that get attention are innovative but there's something about them that sounds fresh maybe. I'm not sure I don't listen to rock that gets attention. It's not the proper comparison I know but I'm talking about comparing Kula to other rock bands I listen to that get fairly little attention but at least aren't derided in the same manner as KS. I just think that deriving their sound from the 1960s and to some extent 1970s in terms of the folkier influences, almost by definition they can't be innovative. The music, to me, doesn't sound new or fresh. Mostly it sounds good, but I tend to have to suspend disbelief and ignore everything else being produced by others. Not necessarily a bad thing. And yes (for the most part) they have a sense of humour. Personally I think they can be too self depricating at times at this allows people to write them off, take the piss etc. I know it works conversely to save them face but maybe they should take a real risk and make their Indian experimental rock tunes and then not basically dismiss themselves.

It's funny. About 90% of whjat I lsiten to is 60-70s, and the reason I listen to that particular era is ebcause everything sounds different. You don't have ten thousand bands all sounding the exact same way, as you do these days, or during the 80s. So it's exactly the fact KS do sound 60-70s.... there []iis[/i] that aprt that makes them outdated, and you can obviously hear their influences quite clearly - espcially on Strangefolk, TBH, with Harry's very 60s organ - but they also have that part where they do have their unique sound and don't sound even exactly like themselves. Ah well...

As for sense of humour and dismissing themselves - I guess it's just a trait I generaly appreciate in people, so KS ebracing it so is fun to me. Plus, they do risk being so pretentious. Which is also the danger with 60s-70s music. Having a sense of humour takes off that edge...

I hope the press will find some nutso story about KulaShaker and push push push PUSH
don't forget your breathing..!

*out pops kittens*


quick! What's more controversial than.. what was it? Well dressed nazis? Wasn't that the problem? Are you honestly worried?

Hi guys, I dont post many comments very often and I am a bit late on this one but I've had a read through it all and wanted to throw this one into the mix for your thoughts:
When wondering why the press haven't been behind Kula Shakers comeback and support is mainly from the dedicated and enlightened few that stuck with them, I think it is possibly down to the fact that they are back under their own label and not a major.
New bands that are backed/signed to a major label are really pushed and shoved down our throats by the huge PR machines that the major labels have. Most major labels have contacts and even pay most mags/newspapers and even tv programmes to feature their acts.
When I speak to people that aren't big music fans and ask them what bands they are listening to or which new bands/cd's they like, they can only list the usual (and in my opinion shit) that is being pushed by the major labels at that time. I have to hit them on the head and open their eyes to other great stuff that is out there that they hadn't ever heard of, eg Kula shaker.
I think if Kula Shaker had major label backing, they would be all over the media making it not an issue about the press. However, I do believe that major labels might not consider them due to the "Nazigate" rubbish.
I do however prefer things the way they are with Kula Shaker. When I saw them on their last tour, the only people that were there were people that were real fans that were really into the music and I'm glad that a major label hasn't got hold of them and tried to change what they do.
If I have made any errors of judgement, I'm sure you will all point it out to me!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sawdustcaesar:
I do however prefer things the way they are with Kula Shaker. When I saw them on their last tour, the only people that were there were people that were real fans that were really into the music and I'm glad that a major label hasn't got hold of them and tried to change what they do.

Hi, I'm glad you've picked up on this thread as I enjoyed this discussion. I hadn't viewed things from this perspective - you suggest that lack of media support is down to finances. I hope this is the case and not as discussed here earlier. I know it may sound selfish on my part but I absolutely love these concerts in small venues-they are just so magical. (I did love Shepherd's Bush too even though it was bigger). I can't help feeling that I've got to experience as many small venues as I can 'cause soon the secret will get out.