Sure, if they can write songs. And that more than anything is what ultimately separates the wheat from the chaff.

“Consider the plight of musicians before the modern age of amplified sound and studio recording, whose instruments always sounded like the same thing. They managed to differentiate themselves within their hardwired sounds somehow.”

Yeag, by having the talent to play their instruments, which is another area which technology has made nearly obsolete.

“reminiscent of many young artists/bands of today … who have figured out one sound they can do well and just keep doing that over and over.”

Nothing personal, but that’s exactly the kind of line that condescending grown-ups have been dismissing new music with for decades, if not centuries. It certainly applies perfectly to “Garlands”, as well as, say, the Jesus & Mary Chain, the Ramones, AC/DC, “Meet The Beatles”, Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters…

Sometimes one sound is enough, at least for an album. Consider the plight of musicians before the modern age of amplified sound and studio recording, whose instruments always sounded like the same thing. They managed to differentiate themselves within their hardwired sounds somehow.

I actually think The Raveonettes have some flexibility in their sound. They veer from distortion-filled noise-rock to (an admittedly rough version of) girl-group pop melodies.

No, because that’s nothing but a formula, and I don’t embrace formulas. I listen to the music and respond to that. What I hear from these samples is reminiscent of many young artists/bands of today – like the Raveonettes, for example, or Art Brut – who have figured out one sound they can do well and just keep doing that over and over. Most of the samples sounded the same to me, screechy, feedback-drenched instrumentation underneath distant, heavily-treated vocals. After one or two songs it gets tiresome.