As part of Austin360's coverage leading up to Austin City Limits Festival next weekend, the bunch of us who pitch in on music coverage took swings at writing short essays on the top acts in the headliner-type slots (The Eagles, Phish, Muse, The Strokes, M.I.A.). I grabbed The Strokes, and after some back and forth with my thesis I came out kinda pleased with it.
Have a look.

http://www.austin360.com/music/acl-fest ... RTR_931195

By Chad Swiatecki
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Hands up – back in fall 2001 who among us could've seen that in less than a decade, the Strokes would find themselves as one of the youngest nostalgia acts in rock history?

That might sound dismissive, but think about the in absentia legacy the New York quintet never managed to carve out after exploding all over the still-new century as the populace yearned for a cure to the pounding hangover from the late '90s rap-rock fiasco.

Think back. Just as we were scanning around they appeared pretty much fully formed, perfectly clothed and toting a musical toolkit whose implements (new wave, punk, art rock) they handled deftly for their age. This was something we could get behind, especially when they had tunes as insultingly catchy as "Last Nite." And better yet, it looked like they were leading a brigade of similarly precocious bands — the White Stripes, Libertines, the Hives, the Vines, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club — who shared some musical DNA but were united more by their intent to stake their claim to a generation's musical heritage.

If it seemed a little too perfect at times, or if the drum-beating U.K. and New York music press got to be too much to take, there were also plenty of moments where it seemed like most of the promises we were hearing might actually be delivered.

For me, the dam broke about 2 a.m. on a Friday night in early September 2001. I'd heard a ton about the Strokes but was allergic to the hype surrounding them, to the point of avoidance.

Returning home from a night of drinking, I tuned the television to MTV2 to see five '70s-fashioned twentysomethings playing on an imitation game show set, and the sound they were making was both new and retro enough that I instantly knew I was hearing the Strokes. The remote control hit the floor and it was time to maybe believe the hype.

In one of those serendipitous one-two punches, the video for "Last Nite" was followed by BRMC's menacing, bracing "Whatever Happened to My Rock 'n'Roll? (Punk Song)," and at that point I was so flabbergasted I couldn't tell which way was up. Suddenly the old Clive Davis, Ahmet Ertegun-era paradigms looked shaky and it seemed as if our new digital world paired with still-working remnants of the music industry's heyday could give us new and exciting music like this every week. The future was here! And it sounded awesome!

At least, that's how I remember it feeling for the five minutes or so before the world had other ideas. Sept. 11 happened and stole our enthusiasm for anything that wasn't red, white or blue. Then emo-punk happened and reminded us that pack-following teens will gladly swallow up horrible music in many forms.

And so while the Strokes never really bombed (debut "Is This It" sold 3 million copies) they never made good on all the "Strokes save rock!" promises others were making on their behalf either. Given that, backlash was inevitable, but it was still ridiculous for an outlet like CNN to run a feature in early 2004 — months after the release of the great but commercially stagnant "Room on Fire" — looking at why The Strokes were "washed up."

It didn't help that their new millennial cohorts fell like flies, with only the White Stripes maintaining commercial and cultural relevancy, or that Simon Cowell lapped Strokes lead singer Julian Casablancas in the race for the title of the decade's pre-eminent pop music figure.

So no one bothered to fret much when the Strokes just sort of went away shortly after 2006's "First Impressions of Earth." Side projects trickled out, breakup rumors were dismissed with a businesslike nonchalance and we all kept on living without paying much mind to the matter of whether we'd ever care about the Strokes again. I mean, who has the time?

But here's the thing; Pull out your iPod, play "Last Nite" and just try to not dance like a fool. You can't. The reason is twofold. One is that it's a purely great pop song, simple and obvious, like all the great ones are.

But the second is where the Strokes get tricky. Because we'd mostly let them drift away in our minds, The Strokes and their music became encased in amber, to the point that no matter what they do down the road they'll always partially embody the promise we once saw not only in them but in ourselves circa 2001-'02.

When they take the stage Friday, October 8 at Zilker Park and Casablancas starts crooning the words to "Last Nite" like he barely cares, we won't all be wearing distressed denim and Chuck Taylors again. But it sure will feel like we are.

Yeah that is kinda weird when you think about it. The Strokes were somehow overhyped without being overplayed.

It's funny because while the first album reminds me of driving between Montgomery and Atlanta, I have a specific memory of one of the most epic nights I can vaguely remember tied to Room On Fire.

I didn't like them when they first came out. I remember thinking that all their songs sounded the same. At the time I was still in highschool in the mountains in North Carolina so the hype barely even registered to me.

"Skrokes" ?

I occasionally dabble in GAR-speak. We all have our faults.

Haha, nah its just funny because I saw yr twitter post so I knew what it was about. It actually reminded me of the Rutles. Like, The Skrokes are some amazing band I should've heard about, quietly wiling away in obscurity.

i'm on the fence about this, but if they didn't do it, who did? i think they have a better claim at saving rock music than anyone else, simply because they were at the forefront of bands looking, acting and sounding like rock'n'roll bands instead of, say, nu metal or emo or bubblegum pop or whatever else was musically mainstream in the late 90s. their approach to the music business was exemplary, and followed now by too many bands to name.

I'm glad we weren't counting on them to save rock & roll given their exemplary pace of releasing music.

Good article, Chad. I agree with your point of them almost being a nostalgia act at this point. My group of friends remembers hearing them in college and being blown away and hearing them now kind of takes us back to that point in our lives. Besides the fact that we actually did like Casablancas' solo album, one of the main reasons my friends and I saw him last fall was because we heard he was playing a few Strokes songs in his set.

What you've outlined is how they redefined being a rock band in the 21st century, which is obviously important but different from what I'm recalling. To my memory, which is certainly fallible but I think trustworthy for the most part, the tenor of the coverage at the time was "All these bands are going to take us back to the good old days!", which was silly and naive to presume in the first place but not many have accused the folks at NME or Rolling Stone of having a bankable crystal ball.

I guess it's a matter of semantics and/or breaking down the lingo, but really "saving" rock'n'roll at this point is more like carrying/passing on the torch. Since it's inception, at least once or twice a decade there's been a rock revival, so I don't think there's truly any danger of the "death" of rock'n'roll.

The difference that we see now, and the Strokes are probably a good example, is that the torch is getting passed on in a much quicker cycle. Think about the older icons - Neil Young, the Stones, Dylan, Brian Wilson, Bruce Sprinsteen, Tom Petty, Elvis Costello, U2, and maybe Aerosmith and The Who - All of them are stillrocking, or at least holding on. Now how many popular rock bands formed in the 90s that are still around today? Green Day and Pearl Jam, is that it? Even if we name more, is it likely they will be around for another 20-30 years like the older icons?

I'm not saying it's for better or worse, but I think we'll see a lot more bands that burn bright and fade out quick like the Strokes, rather than bands that will build a foundation for the llong haul.

No they were definitely overplayed. I get what Chad is saying because I liked "Is This It?" but I never even bothered listening to "Room on Fire" or anything else. I know GAR is a huge fan of that album. I've just never had any urge to hear anything else by them. Still, there are a few songs off the first album that will get my toe tappin' if they come up on random.

for some reason, this made me think of "$uckin' Dick$"

Yeah, this gets right to my point. They're at a place where you hear those early songs and there's a transportational quality going on. It should be said that I do like the Strokes' body of work so it's not totally a nostalgia thing for me, but that definitely is a component of what they've got going on.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

I'll fall back on my earlier point and say how amazing it is that we talk about the Strokes' "body" of work after they've released approximately 2 hours of music over 10 years. Is it a testament to the band and the quality of such a small creative output or are we just bereft of anything that had any real cultural impact over the last decade that we're still talking about them and think of them in such a fond, nostalgic way?

I think they might be one of the last examples of a cross-cultural phenomenon in rock and roll. I.E. there was a good chance your parents knew The Strokes were here to save Rock and Roll.

I don't think "real cultural impact" is possible anymore for anything not rap or Lady Gaga style pop.

The Strokes may have been the last band to come along when rock was deemed "worth saving" as well.

wrong, Surfer Blood

Maybe you're blinded by your love of the Strokes but I call complete BS on this. The Strokes while heavily hyped were never a band that was going to save rock n' roll. If the 3 million sales figure is even right, it pales in comparison to Nirvana - Never Mind. Hell, most of the White Stripes albums have probably outsold that.

I don't buy rock not having any cultural impact in the future either. Who knows what might break in the future? How many people saw Elvis or the Beatles coming? Who predicted the punk movement? Anything is possible.

"Complete BS" means you either did not read what I wrote or you don't know anything about modern culture.

"LAST BAND" = going back in time from the present, they were the last band to get that certain type of publicity and hype - that they were a rock and roll band with a cool sound that could bring that cool rock and roll sound back. Nirvana was BEFORE The Strokes on our current timeline.

And as you well know our culture has become much more fractured. Elvis and The Beatles come from a time of 3 channels on TV and AM radio. Now we have so many more outlets for creativity that it is hard for one band to get the kind of recognition possible to transcend the overall culture.

I also said that many critics or culture mavens and machers don't believe that the type of straight ahead rock and roll The Strokes traffic is "worth saving."

They would rather promote the most recent PPDD sounds or Radiohead.

Good try though, Billy.

The Strokes and the media basically just created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whether or not the Strokes actually delivered on the promise doesn't matter, the hype itself was enough to get rock back in the public's eye, if only long enough to smite nu-metal and influence kids to start crappy garage rock bands instead of crappy rap rock bands.

Also I don't see how one could be so entirely sure that the Stokes "were never a band that was going to save rock n' roll" and then go on to say how unpredictable and unlimited the music scene is.

Honestly, when I reach for The Strokes, it's First Impressions of Earth 75% of the time. I know that probably flies in the face of normal thinking with this band, but it's really no different than Bloor saying that he reaches for Terror Twilight with Pavement.

Bottom line. Good rock and roll is still good rock and roll. It's just a lot harder to find it these days in our oversaturated music culture. "Saving rock and roll" is irrelevant in this day and age.

Or maybe, just maybe, you aren't nearly as great a communicakgorgor as you think you are.

"LAST BAND" when combined with "I don't think "real cultural impact" is possible anymore " certainly sounds more like you were arguing that there wouldn't be any more rock bands that could have the impact of the strokes in the future and not that they were the most recent example of a heavily hyped band enjoying success.

I get that with all the options available nowadays, we are moving/have moved from a broadcasting/heavily filtered culture to more of a "narrowcasting" culture in which it is harder for any type of entertainment to have the same impact as it did in the past assuming it could get through the filters. That said, I just call bullshit on any sort of statement that says rock is dead or that there will never be any band that breaks through and cross cultural success.

The idea that rock was or is dead is bullshit anyway. Just a few years before the first Strokes album came out, Santana had an album that sold 15 million copies. Not saying I'm a big fan, but it was a rock album. Also, the Strokes were one of many bands getting a lot of hype back in 2002. The White Stripes had just as much hype, Hives had almost as much, and the Vines probably had even more early on before they released a dud of a debut album. Strokes were just a band with a lot of hype and a good debut album. I'm sure I'm bringing my own prejudices to display here but I never expected them to have much of a career beyond that. The whole distorted vocals thing just screamed fad to me.

The billboard charts are littered with rap and dance pop now but they aren't likely artists that are here for the long haul. They are fads. The billboard charts themselves are far more dead than Rock. I just don't buy any pronouncements that we'll never see another big rock band again. No one would have predicated any of the "game changing" acts or movements. That's why they they had the impact that they did -- because they seemed to come out of nowhere at the time.

One word: Jet

That is why this album never did it for me. Good songs, good sounds, messed up by unnecessary distorted vocals. It serves no purpose or enhancement.