Keith Daniels: Louis XIV

I don't care what Pitchfork says, I like this band.

That's my response to everything, Keith.

I came for the tie, and stayed for the Sleaze.

The All Music Guide review is much closer to my own opinion.

Also, I really wish every band I interviewed would go this much in depth about the way they record their songs, what they were were thinking about, and how they write them. This is one of my favorite interviews. Very easy.



[Edited on Apr 06, 2005 by Keith]

i really love this band.

good interview.

Hopefully that shows they are confident in what they do, that they aren't relying on the 'mystique' of the band to sell it.

Yeah. Some of the negative reviews they've been getting write them off as a derivative joke, but talking to the guy, I think he honestly loves classic rock and the classicist style of songwriting and recording.

99.9% of the time, Pitchfork rates more on how "cool" the band is, rather than on actual quality. I know they have have SG banners on their site, so I probably shouldn't say that, but well, it's true.

while they did rip off T Rex a little, theyre really fucking good.

theres not too many 'party rock' records that arent simeoultaneously in Jock Jams...

I don't understand what's happening these days. There's a difference between "indluenced by" and sounding EXACTLY like other things. Rock is basically doing what hip-hop has done, taking things from the past, cutting and pasting and putting their own name on it. I wish a real band with truly gifted artists would emerge soon, these bands (killers, strokes, jet) are just making shallow records that don't have any quality of true musicianship, originality and talent. Sorry to sound rude, but I don't even think this is an opinion, it seems to be a fact. And I realize A&R guys are still trying to push a trend but it they are not taking chances anymore and delivering real music. Rock has all but disappeared. Come on, there have got to be real bands out there, not just one's that soem critic said is cool, and a bunch of cattle believed them.

And loves classic rock? But never heard of Gang of Four. Yea, this is the real deal, excuse me while I go sell the Brooklyn Bridge to my fairy god mother

Have you heard it? I dunno, I can't think of anything less "hip" than what this band is trying to do. They're not ripping off New Wave or CBGBs bands, post-punk, or 60s garage rock. Louis XIV's music is certainly not what I'd try to make if I were trying to make a quick buck, so I think it's unfair to lump them in with the new wave revivalists like the Killers. I mean, the last song of the record has the line, like the AMG review mentions, "God Bless the Kinks and the music from Big Pinks", and that's supposed to be trendy?

Gang of Four are certainly "classic", but they're not "classic rock". I'm talking "Classic Rock" as in the radio format. T.Rex, Bowie, Stones, Zeppelin, etc.

This is also, hands down, the best sounding record I've heard all year. If I ever make a record, I'm so going to try to get Jason Hill to produce it. His stuff sounds amazing.

[Edited on Apr 06, 2005 by Keith]

Have you heard it? I dunno, I can't think of anything less "hip" than what this band is trying to do. They're not ripping off New Wave or CBGBs bands, or 60s garage rock. Louis XIV's music is certainly not what I'd try to make if I were trying to make a quick buck, so I think it's unfair to lump them in with the new wave revivalists like the Killers.

Gang of Four are certainly "classic", but they're not "classic rock". I'm talking "Classic Rock" as in the radio format. T.Rex, Bowie, Stones, Zeppelin, etc.

This is also, hands down, the best sounding record I've heard all year. If I ever make a record, I'm so going to try to get Jason Hill to produce it. His stuff sounds amazing.



[Edited on Apr 06, 2005 by therealbuffy]

Out of curiousity, (to Keith, and yes, I did hear their record, I work in the music industry, and I'm just sick of these bands that are a dime a dozen) what are some of your other choices for "best sounding records"

And I'm sorry you don't think that the Clash, Gang of Four, PIL, the Jam, and others don't fall into the category of classic rock. They are, and just because your local classic rock radio station doesn't play them isn't a good reason not to include them on that scale. And for the record, I'm not even a fan of Gang of Four.

And I hope you weren't putting the Louis record in a category with the other bands you mentioned. I also wish reviewers would have better record collections, if you are a T-Rex fan then HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THEM TO THAT. Ian Hunter is the closest anyone's come to T-Rex, and Louis sounds like a Casio compared to Mott and Ian.

I just wish that people were more critical about music, christ, if Led got terrible reviews coming out, but Louis gets some praise, it might be one of the reasons why music sucks today. Cause people's ears have obviously been trained to think that Killers and the Strokes are even real bands and not kids with good connections and money. Critics used have a relationship to the people making music and would keep them on their toes.

The best thing to come of all these bands is people have now heard of Television. Maybe with your article some kid will go buy a T-Rex record and throw out the Louis one. Just be sure to try and recycle it, thats what they did

You don't know me, so don't pretend like you know what's in my record collection. I'm not getting into a "bigger dick" contest with you, but I assure you that, unless you've got the fucking Library of Congress in your basement, my collection is quite adequate. I didn't say that it was "the best sounding recording of all time", I said it was "one of the best I've heard all year". It's fucking April, man, and I'm talking about records that came out this year.

Re: "Classic Rock", you're confusing the definition of the words with the genre. Of course the Clash, Gang of Four, et al, are classics and rock, but "classic rock" is a distinct genre, so don't play semantics. If someone says "I like classic rock", you know they mean Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Stones, and the Who, et al, not the fucking Clash.

I am a T. Rex fan, and I can compare them to T. Rex because, in case you haven't noticed, people are reading this, and that's the quickest way to give them an idea of what to expect if they go pick up this record.
It's like describing someone's face with words. I could tell you about their bone structure, or I could say he looks "like Mick Jagger" or something. Doesn't the latter give you a quicker picture?

Music isn't zero sum, man. I don't have to throw out one record to make way for a new one. I can like Television and the Strokes. I can like T. Rex AND Louis XIV. But why are you even talking about the Strokes? This guy's not the son of a millionaire. You must not have even read the interview, because we talked about how they self-recorded and DYI'd their first record and two EPs. That doesn't sound like a manufactured band to me.

Also, I'm not a critic. I'm an interviewer. The closest I come to reviewing a record is in my choices of who to interview, I.E. I only interview bands I like. As an interviewer, my job is to give some insight into the person I'm interviewing. If you feel I haven't done that, by all means, call me out. If my questions seem like softballs to you, then it's because I'm fortunate enough to work for a place that never, ever forces me to interview anyone. So why would I interrogate a band I like and drag them over the coals? Put yourself in my position. If I only interviewed bands that made absolute masterpieces completely unlike anything that was ever done before, I wouldn't get a lot of work, now would I? Fortunately, I like rock'n'roll, I like well-written pop songs, and I'm capable of enjoying new music even if their influences are obvious. Good rock'n'roll is good rock'n'roll to me, because it's all been done before.

[Edited on Apr 06, 2005 by Keith]

You don't know me, so don't pretend like you know what's in my record collection. I'm not getting into a "bigger dick" contest with you, but I assure you that, unless you've got the fucking Library of Congress in your basement, my collection is quite adequate. I didn't say that it was "the best sounding recording of all time", I said it was "one of the best I've heard all year". It's fucking April, man, and I'm talking about records that came out this year.

Re: "Classic Rock", you're confusing the definition of the words with the genre. Of course the Clash, Gang of Four, et al, are classics and rock, but "classic rock" is a distinct genre, so don't play semantics. If someone says "I like classic rock", you know they mean Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Stones, and the Who, et al, not the fucking Clash.

I am a T. Rex fan, and I can compare them to T. Rex because, in case you haven't noticed, people are reading this, and that's the quickest way to give them an idea of what to expect if they go pick up this record.
It's like describing someone's face with words. I could tell you about their bone structure, or I could say he looks "like Mick Jagger" or something. Doesn't the latter give you a quicker picture?

Music isn't zero sum, man. I don't have to throw out one record to make way for a new one. I can like Television and the Strokes. I can like T. Rex AND Louis XIV.

Also, I'm not a critic. I'm an interviewer. The closest I come to reviewing a record is in my choices of who to interview, I.E. I only interview bands I like. As an interviewer, my job is to give some insight into the person I'm interviewing. If you feel I haven't done that, by all means, call me out. If my questions seem like softballs to you, then it's because I'm fortunate enough to work for a place that never, ever forces me to interview anyone. So why would I interrogate a band I like and drag them over the coals? Put yourself in my position. If I only interviewed bands that made absolute masterpieces completely unlike anything that was ever done before, I wouldn't get a lot of work, now would I? Fortunately, I like rock'n'roll, I like well-written pop songs, and I'm capable of enjoying new music even if their influences are obvious. Good rock'n'roll is good rock'n'roll to me, because it's all been done before.




[Edited on Apr 06, 2005 by therealbuffy]

Wo, hold on, I didn't mean to hurt anyones feelings. I thought we were having a fun music arguement, no need to get all "fuck" and "dick" about it. Remember, you replied to me first, I just posted what I thought about the band, not you. So don't challenge people if you're just going to get bitchy about it

You didn't hurt my feelings. And I didn't say 'fuck you" or call you a dick. If I thought you were a dick, I wouldn't bother to respond. I fully expected some negative response about this band, and we are having a fun music argument.

In fact, I was just talking with the other main interviewer here the other day about how much I love criticism in the comments.

[Edited on Apr 06, 2005 by Keith]

I was having fun, I like talking to people who know a lot about music. I read your bio page and I don't think we should be argueing, we should be hanging out. I know the guys in Television, and their bank accounts couldn't be more thrilled about the current trends. I'm just sick of it, I have to work with a hundred of these bands a day and my faith in rock-n-roll is getting killed pretty fast

I hear that. I hear so many promos that I have to switch off within like thirty seconds. I can't imagine if I had to listen to more of them or actually help promote them. Honestly, though, maybe Louis XIV are a bit derivative, but I just don't think it's a cynical attempt to be trendy or a cash-in. That makes a difference to me, at least.

And if you know the guys in Television, we should definitely hang out. At least make a journal and a profile pic!

I gotta stay pictureless cause of my job, I don't think they'd approve. Low key for me

Be fair, therealbuffy, you have Oasis as one of your favorite bands, and they were accused of the same shit these guys are.

That's cool. I think I can sum it all up like this:

To me, there are two basic ways a band can be good. One is to do something entirely new and interesting. The other is to do something in an existing style, but do it well. Maybe the difference between "genius" and "craftsmanship".

ummm, not trendy?? did anyone HEAR the last band they were in??? "I've seen better days..." yea, that song? it was right up there with LEN 'Steal My Sunshine' now they put on eyeliner and dance around and they're NOT trendy??

bah. they suck.
and so does their video.

it's all very uninspiring... in my opinion

I'm pretty sure that was Thrice. A google search of "convoy" + "I've seen better days" + lyrics turns up zero.

[Edited on Apr 06, 2005 by Keith]