Okay, it seems that my previous post confused some people, so I just want to make a couple of points:
1. I have nothing against simplicity, or against the style in which Travis work. Indeed, one of my major difficulties in liking them is the fact that I love so many bands like them, that adopting a less distinctive version of the same seems pointless. Bands which write "simple songs" that I love: Wire, The Smiths, The Church, The Go-Betweens, The Field Mice, The Sundays... The list goes on. What's more, I don't think that Travis' songs are incredibly simple either; I'll admit the choruses are artfully obvious (not necessarily a bad thing), but so are quite a few of Pink Floyd's. Every Travis song I've heard has had quite complex arrangements, lush harmonies and "soaring" guitarwork. Saying that Travis are a triumph of the "heartfelt song" over "modern production values" is a fallacy - from the Godriched guitar to Fran's just-this-side-of-fey vocals, Travis are incredibly of their time: their swift transformation from sub-Oasis glamsters singing about prepubescent girls to the less difficult to handle Radiohead doesn't bother me, but I'm sure the Travis fan would feel uncomfortable explaining the market-savviness of it all. On a purely aural level, Travis's productions are lovely, but to me they seem to be the wrong kind of lovely: all wisp and no substance, only not in a good way like Geneva.
2. I can't stress this enough: I detest irony in music. The only thing I dislike more than irony in music is people who assume that pop music is by definition ironic, or people who can only appreciate such music on an allegedly ironic level. And hipness is a concept only cast about by those who love or hate Beck. As I am neither, I won't even go there.
I'll probably just get into more trouble for this, but I hate not having the last word.
