Nice, just when I thought Uticas had this area covered, we have a brand new entry into the "difficult music" island of disappointment.
A band named People, who are of course from NYC, have come out with a ridiculously inventive and generally insane album. Unfortunately, Aaron Leitko likes his albums smooth and simple. Let's ponder some of his ridiculous statements.
Dense, informed, and academic, Misbegotten Man, the sophomore record by Brooklyn's People, is sort of the indie-rock equivalent of a senior thesis paper.
Those first three descriptive words should tell you where we're headed: Death From Musical Exhaustion!!! Run for the hills, this music is too ferociously academic for your piddling ear drums!
Also, when summing up a band's sound, using "sort of" does not work. Find another phrase that "is" the sound instead of trying to be clever.
The carefully scripted chaos of guitarist/vocalist Mary Halverson and drummer Kevin Shea might be an excellent representation of accumulated knowledge, originality, and creative thinking, but listening to the album all the way through can be an exercise in patience more arduous than trying to read Jacques Derrida during an earthquake.
HA HA HA! YES! There it is, a blanket statement claiming that music of People is just TOO DARN HARD to listen to. Darn these forward thinking bands and their carefully crafted and challenging music!
As Uticas pointed out, this is just a simple case of a music critic not knowing his ABC's. It's not that the music is too challenging; moreso this review shows the writer's own shortcomings as a student of music. There is nothing wrong with complex music. Granted, not everyone wants to listen to Merzbow, but give the listener some credit. Let's continue.
Each shambling composition squats around the same tempo and follows a similar predictably unpredictable structure.
Translation: Can't they write a song in 3/4 that I can accurately review? Can't the drums sit back on the 2's and 4's?
This is ridiculous. Are you actually complaining about predicting "unpredictability?" So they play to their strength, is that such a bad thing? Sounds like they avoid complacency but stick to what they know. So what's there to complain about?
The lyrics are where People come off at their most textbook-driven and tedious.
Fun. This is the part of the review where one guy contradicts the general consensus. Now to think of all the bands Pitchfork have loved who have questionable lyrics. The Books have terrible preachy eco lyrics, Fiery Furnaces get away with a lot, hell, have you ever tried to decipher Neutral Milk Hotel's words? Sure you have, it's part of the fun! Not according to to this guy, of course.
Based on this review(small sample-size aside), Aaron Leitko believes there are two types of music:
a) simple, easy to consume rock/pop with digestible lyrical sentiments
b) overly complex math-diarrhea with over-the-top-bullshit-crossword-puzzle lyrics
The world is not black and white, Aaron. As crazy as this music is, I'm sure it's not half as fucked up as you have scribed. Oh yeah, and my favorite moment of the review comes up right now!
The critical about-face!!!
The duo's quirks give them a unique and mischievous identity that's more interesting than, say, your average group of eyeliner-sporting three-chord lookers.
Cool. Thanks for your opinion. I mean opinions. I mean, what the fuck are you talking about? You refuse to give props to the band's musicianship, recording technique, sound quality, sequencing, fuck, you reference 3 snippets of lyrics! And then, after bashing the group for their too dense, too complex, too non-sensical sound, you turn around and say, "Well, at least they're not like everyone else?" Follow through with your convictions, don't muddy the waters!
After a few listens you may even find yourself empathizing with People in their plight as intellectual musicians operating in a medium that usually thrives on, well, being kind of dumb.
Here's a thought: Some music critics are like the band People. They show their love of music in their craft.
And some critics are kind of dumb. Like you.
Friday, October 26, 2007
A Touch of Annoyance
Write whatever you want about indie music, just don't make the mistake of writing about the punk ethos. You are wrong. Very wrong. Come back when you read "Please Kill Me" or read a single interview with the Pistols. Tom Ewing made this mistake in his ridiculous column on Pitchfork entitled "Poptimist #9". The column refers to the NME's recent attempt to get "God Save the Queen" to #1 on the charts.
To generalise wildly, for an American audience punk stands for something creative-- an independent ethos and a DIY spirit.
Wrong. Wrong. What's great is that the British punk movement showed the world how to do it. The Buzzcock's "Spiral Scratch EP" set the tone, millions of band followed the example. America did not do it first. Get your shit straight. I don't care if you're wildly generalizing. That doesn't give you the right to fudge facts.
"It does stand for those things in Britain as well but also contains a destructive spirit, a declaration of Year Zero against what had gone before, no matter its quality: "No Elvis, Beatles, and the Rolling Stones in 1977".
Cool, nothing like perpetuating a myth about the base fundamentalism of punk. This fact has been refuted from day one (or Year Zero, whatever the F you want to call it). In fact, the Sex Pistols music reeked of early Beatles and the early 70's Stones. Also, how the fuck does one even try to escape the great ghost of Elvis. You don't, that's how.
He is the godfather. He sat down in Sun studios with some session musicians and while taking a break started playing "Blue Moon of Kentucky." No prompting, they just thought it was fun. Sam Phillips thought it was more than that. And thus, after a bunch of other like-minded back-beat-oriented tracks were cut, Rock and Roll was born for white America.
To escape Elvis, you need to play experimental music, and it maybe needs to be played from the moon with an orchestra comprised of polar bears. Telling the Queen to fuck off does not change the base derivative. The Pistols were a rock band, through and through. The image and fuck 'em attitude pushed the envelope, the music not so much. The Velvet's, Jonathan Richman, Stooges, Ramones, every band on the Nuggets release, the Kinks, the Who, the Small Faces, Chuck Berry, the list goes on and on. The Pistols' music was not revolutionary, it in fact was an amazing time warp. One escaped the overblown grandeur of Prog-rock and Lite Smooth Soundz of FM radio, not Elvis, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.
Also to say that the American punk scene had nothing to do with "a destructive spirit" is bizarre. The violence of the West Coast hardcore and D.C. hardcore scenes even put off the musicians.
Wildly generalizing is for the birds.
Once again, there is going to be a follow-up on this very soon where I will point out how Rock Writing (notice the importance that capital letters bring to The Table!) is in a horrible state of repetition, where seemingly educated writers ignore the fact that they are recycling 20 year old material.
Bring me advancement or bring me death by musical exhaustion!!!
To generalise wildly, for an American audience punk stands for something creative-- an independent ethos and a DIY spirit.
Wrong. Wrong. What's great is that the British punk movement showed the world how to do it. The Buzzcock's "Spiral Scratch EP" set the tone, millions of band followed the example. America did not do it first. Get your shit straight. I don't care if you're wildly generalizing. That doesn't give you the right to fudge facts.
"It does stand for those things in Britain as well but also contains a destructive spirit, a declaration of Year Zero against what had gone before, no matter its quality: "No Elvis, Beatles, and the Rolling Stones in 1977".
Cool, nothing like perpetuating a myth about the base fundamentalism of punk. This fact has been refuted from day one (or Year Zero, whatever the F you want to call it). In fact, the Sex Pistols music reeked of early Beatles and the early 70's Stones. Also, how the fuck does one even try to escape the great ghost of Elvis. You don't, that's how.
He is the godfather. He sat down in Sun studios with some session musicians and while taking a break started playing "Blue Moon of Kentucky." No prompting, they just thought it was fun. Sam Phillips thought it was more than that. And thus, after a bunch of other like-minded back-beat-oriented tracks were cut, Rock and Roll was born for white America.
To escape Elvis, you need to play experimental music, and it maybe needs to be played from the moon with an orchestra comprised of polar bears. Telling the Queen to fuck off does not change the base derivative. The Pistols were a rock band, through and through. The image and fuck 'em attitude pushed the envelope, the music not so much. The Velvet's, Jonathan Richman, Stooges, Ramones, every band on the Nuggets release, the Kinks, the Who, the Small Faces, Chuck Berry, the list goes on and on. The Pistols' music was not revolutionary, it in fact was an amazing time warp. One escaped the overblown grandeur of Prog-rock and Lite Smooth Soundz of FM radio, not Elvis, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.
Also to say that the American punk scene had nothing to do with "a destructive spirit" is bizarre. The violence of the West Coast hardcore and D.C. hardcore scenes even put off the musicians.
Wildly generalizing is for the birds.
Once again, there is going to be a follow-up on this very soon where I will point out how Rock Writing (notice the importance that capital letters bring to The Table!) is in a horrible state of repetition, where seemingly educated writers ignore the fact that they are recycling 20 year old material.
Bring me advancement or bring me death by musical exhaustion!!!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
but -- but where are the WORDS!
instrumental music confuses most rock critics. without some dude crooning about this or that, they simply don't know where to start. this reveals a number of important shortcomings, primarily the fact that "music critics" can't really find shit to say about music.
let me be clear. rock critics seldom devote their efforts to analyzing lyrics; they simply take their cues from the most obvious lyrical moments, and they use those cues as the foundation of their evaluations.
for example, look at the way people talked about bob dylan's newest record "modern times". go ahead, search out some reviews. try to find one that doesn't quote the line "some young lazy slut has charmed away my brains." now, this is merely the most obvious line on an album overflowing with ramblings from arguably the best lyricist recorded music has ever seen. but most critics depicted his mood only as "grumpy" or some such adjective. they got away with this because they referred all of their thoughts to a single line in the first song (of course) that stood out to them merely because of the presence of the word "slut".
that lazy slut bob dylan's been on about
returning to my original point, when words aren't present, these critics have no idea what to latch on to. there is nothing present to cue them, nothing obvious to direct their criticism. they must actually listen to the music and then talk about it (mirabile dictu!). this is not their area of expertise.
all of this is brought about by pitchfork's latest review of ahleuchatistas' new record "even in the midst...". for those who don't know, ahleuchatistas is a group that uses a punk aesthetic to express jazz harmonies and other post-serialist dissonance. they are often called "mathy" because a lot of the time they don't write in 4/4. "even in the midst..." is their fourth record, the previous three being superb and urgent efforts to part from rock's overbearingly dull monotony. they seem more interested in composing music than composing their identity, which i find refreshing.
so what does joe tangari have to say? "ummmm..." here's a few samples from this directionless, careless review: the first track "opens with a series of splintered phrases that sound about like a bird's nest looks. then it trips some sort of wire and all three members lock into a breakneck martial/martian rhythm." take a moment to digest that. what does a bird's nest look like, and how would you imagine that sounds? soak in the abysmal metaphor that is "trips some sort of wire". [SOME SORT!] is "martian rhythm" critic-speak for 5/4? what the hell is he talking about?
but that was just praise. there are, of course, some the negatives. "in a couple of places, when the band seems to want a challenge, the music becomes somewhat overcomplicated and it becomes easy to loose the thread." response #1: "easy to loose the thread" for whom? response #2: "somewhat overcomplicated" -- the words of a man just dying to pop his grizzly bear CD in again and just relax. response #3: sometimes a band wants a challenge, but occasionally, a band assumes that it's audience might want one as well.
moving right along, "there's also something of a familiarity factor creeping in, given that their approach has remained fundamentally the same since day one." at last, here it is. carefully composed instrumental music all sounds the same to critics, because they are either too incapable or too impatient to analyze the differences between compositions. these people are bored by complexity, while blues progressions in 4/4 continue to enthrall them.
rock critics are students of convention. they study it carefully, and wonder at the possibilities that convention continues to offer (e.g. spoon, arcade fire). the idea of creating new conventions doesn't excite them; they prefer rotating forms of referential creativity (lcd soundsystem, devendra banhart, black kids).
above all, they prefer words, because words make music easier to understand. words are easier to write about than music. you wouldn't find yourself describing a lyrical phrase as "martial/martian"; you don't need to stretch that far. but bands that don't sing, even a band as aggressively brilliant as ahleuchatistas, will end up saddled with "a familiarity factor". this is because every time you review them, you have to actually DESCRIBE music, analyze it without the overt presence of a human ego to direct you. without familiar emotional signposts, it won't be long before you end up describing sound by connecting it to the look of a bird's nest.
instrumental music has very little commercial appeal. people like to sing along. they like to hear their musicians use the words "baby" and "oh" and "yeah". but critics are billed as experts -- an elite group who can see beyond commercial taste and come face to face with the artistic content within in an album. but feed them music without words, and soon enough, they'll be longing for "baby" and "oh" and "yeah" just like the hoi polloi.
let me be clear. rock critics seldom devote their efforts to analyzing lyrics; they simply take their cues from the most obvious lyrical moments, and they use those cues as the foundation of their evaluations.
for example, look at the way people talked about bob dylan's newest record "modern times". go ahead, search out some reviews. try to find one that doesn't quote the line "some young lazy slut has charmed away my brains." now, this is merely the most obvious line on an album overflowing with ramblings from arguably the best lyricist recorded music has ever seen. but most critics depicted his mood only as "grumpy" or some such adjective. they got away with this because they referred all of their thoughts to a single line in the first song (of course) that stood out to them merely because of the presence of the word "slut".
that lazy slut bob dylan's been on about
returning to my original point, when words aren't present, these critics have no idea what to latch on to. there is nothing present to cue them, nothing obvious to direct their criticism. they must actually listen to the music and then talk about it (mirabile dictu!). this is not their area of expertise.
all of this is brought about by pitchfork's latest review of ahleuchatistas' new record "even in the midst...". for those who don't know, ahleuchatistas is a group that uses a punk aesthetic to express jazz harmonies and other post-serialist dissonance. they are often called "mathy" because a lot of the time they don't write in 4/4. "even in the midst..." is their fourth record, the previous three being superb and urgent efforts to part from rock's overbearingly dull monotony. they seem more interested in composing music than composing their identity, which i find refreshing.
so what does joe tangari have to say? "ummmm..." here's a few samples from this directionless, careless review: the first track "opens with a series of splintered phrases that sound about like a bird's nest looks. then it trips some sort of wire and all three members lock into a breakneck martial/martian rhythm." take a moment to digest that. what does a bird's nest look like, and how would you imagine that sounds? soak in the abysmal metaphor that is "trips some sort of wire". [SOME SORT!] is "martian rhythm" critic-speak for 5/4? what the hell is he talking about?
but that was just praise. there are, of course, some the negatives. "in a couple of places, when the band seems to want a challenge, the music becomes somewhat overcomplicated and it becomes easy to loose the thread." response #1: "easy to loose the thread" for whom? response #2: "somewhat overcomplicated" -- the words of a man just dying to pop his grizzly bear CD in again and just relax. response #3: sometimes a band wants a challenge, but occasionally, a band assumes that it's audience might want one as well.
moving right along, "there's also something of a familiarity factor creeping in, given that their approach has remained fundamentally the same since day one." at last, here it is. carefully composed instrumental music all sounds the same to critics, because they are either too incapable or too impatient to analyze the differences between compositions. these people are bored by complexity, while blues progressions in 4/4 continue to enthrall them.
rock critics are students of convention. they study it carefully, and wonder at the possibilities that convention continues to offer (e.g. spoon, arcade fire). the idea of creating new conventions doesn't excite them; they prefer rotating forms of referential creativity (lcd soundsystem, devendra banhart, black kids).
above all, they prefer words, because words make music easier to understand. words are easier to write about than music. you wouldn't find yourself describing a lyrical phrase as "martial/martian"; you don't need to stretch that far. but bands that don't sing, even a band as aggressively brilliant as ahleuchatistas, will end up saddled with "a familiarity factor". this is because every time you review them, you have to actually DESCRIBE music, analyze it without the overt presence of a human ego to direct you. without familiar emotional signposts, it won't be long before you end up describing sound by connecting it to the look of a bird's nest.
instrumental music has very little commercial appeal. people like to sing along. they like to hear their musicians use the words "baby" and "oh" and "yeah". but critics are billed as experts -- an elite group who can see beyond commercial taste and come face to face with the artistic content within in an album. but feed them music without words, and soon enough, they'll be longing for "baby" and "oh" and "yeah" just like the hoi polloi.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
funny things
more pitchfork bashing. here's a song by the rapture remixed by simian mobile disco.
dear pitchfork,
all the best,
uticas
dear pitchfork,
all the best,
uticas
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Perpetuation of Rock and Roll
This is old news, and it doesn't really matter, but last year Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Strange and stranger still is the list of groups that are "eligible" for inclusion this year:
Afrika Bambaataa
Beastie Boys
Chic
Dave Clark Five
Donna Summer
John Mellencamp
Leonard Cohen
Madonna
The Ventures
Read it again. And again. I will now list the nominees respective genres.
Hip hop/Rap
Hip hop/Rap
Disco/R'n'B
Folk Rock
Disco/R'n'B
American Rock
Folk
Dance/Pop/R'nB/Electro/Kabbalah
Rock and Roll
Notice anything? Yeah, so did I. Two straight up Rock acts. Two.
What the fuck is going on here? It pissed me off when they opened this supposed "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame", honoring a completely ridiculous and seemingly random number of artists. Also, could the idea of a Hall of Fame be any more embarrassingly American? In driving to my new home town of Outside of Chicago, myself and the Cleverest One passed the "RV Hall of Fame" in Indiana. They have Halls for everything. It is not a grandiose place of legends, it's a capital-driven tourist attraction, located in Cleveland, the Fertile Crescent of Rock and Roll that spawned such great groups as...well, not many great groups, I don't have time to cherry pick here.
This is besides the point. Has Rock and Roll really run out of useful candidates to induct? Or is Rock really trying to stake a claim for all other genres? Again:
Africa Bambaataa-in the mid to late 70's, he spurred a cultural movement in the Boogie Down Bronx, DJing block parties to give the youth something to do. He later teamed up with Renaissance man Arthur Baker and Funk and Soul pioneer James Brown to name a few collaborators. He and the Zulu Nation helped shape the early age of Hip Hop as we know it.
Nothing to do with Rock and Roll. Nothing.
Beastie Boys- one could make a claim that their marraige of hardcore rock ideals and aesthetic with the booming bap of Rick Rubin's 808 drum machine could make them semi-suitable candidates. I semi-agree. Only semi-wise, though.
Chic- The music was funky and made you dance like nothing else. Unless you were white, because white people dance like uncomfortable robots with self esteem issues. But that's the core of the issue. This music is not rock and roll. It spans several genres, but last time I checked Rock and Roll wasn't defined as any music played with a guitar, bass, drum and singing.
Dave Clark Five - Sure, why not. It would get the naysayers like this guy off of your collective back, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:
"They were a hard driving group who played with all their heart and soul. Their music is still played today by a lot of people. Mike Smith had one of the best voices of the time and maybe in all of rock and roll. They sold over 50 million records as a group and they should be in the Hall of Fame."
Playing with their heart and soul? I'm sure that's easy criteria to assess. There has to be some universal gauge for heart and soul lying around. And no, their music is not played by a lot of people. Only old codgers and indie bands doing Garageband remixes. Also, when was the last time you read or heard anything about Mike Smith being a great vocalist? Never. That's right, never. Howling Wolf, Chuck Berry, John Lennon, Robert Plant, Harry Nilsson, the list goes on. And it usually does so without Mike Smith. Fuck you.
Donna Summer - What the fuck? What the fuck is going on here? Seriously, like, what the fuck? She did a disco cover of "The Wanderer?" I just...fuck. Is this...where am I? I'm blinded by this...Wait, seriously, I'm writing about Donna Summer and Rock. No. Disco. She did disco. Instrumentally, there were some...nevermind, it's fruitless.
This hurts too much to even finish the list. The real kicker is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria for a candidate:
"Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll."
Awful. Rock has been teetering on the brink of extinction for a while now, but that perpetuation line is a kick in the crotch of the movement itself.
The idea that a form of music that was so alive is now dead is sad enough. To state that other genres are mere perpetuations of Rock is just wrong. If it was true, and we're basing this on honest to god chains of influence, rock came out of the Chicago and New Orleans Jazz scenes, which were in turn birthed from the New Orleans brothel house music. So really this should be the New Orleans Brothel House Music Hall of Fame, and it should encompass all music everywhere.
A message to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: No need to be pathetic. Why not choose from any number of great bands out there who deserve a ridiculous and arbitrary award? Husker Du, Minor Threat, Black Flag, Television, New York Dolls, etc. Rock and Roll is great, and you don't need to grab other genres to make yourself feel good.
Unless you're Madonna. There was supposed to be a humorous drum shot there. Nevermind.
Strange and stranger still is the list of groups that are "eligible" for inclusion this year:
Afrika Bambaataa
Beastie Boys
Chic
Dave Clark Five
Donna Summer
John Mellencamp
Leonard Cohen
Madonna
The Ventures
Read it again. And again. I will now list the nominees respective genres.
Hip hop/Rap
Hip hop/Rap
Disco/R'n'B
Folk Rock
Disco/R'n'B
American Rock
Folk
Dance/Pop/R'nB/Electro/Kabbalah
Rock and Roll
Notice anything? Yeah, so did I. Two straight up Rock acts. Two.
What the fuck is going on here? It pissed me off when they opened this supposed "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame", honoring a completely ridiculous and seemingly random number of artists. Also, could the idea of a Hall of Fame be any more embarrassingly American? In driving to my new home town of Outside of Chicago, myself and the Cleverest One passed the "RV Hall of Fame" in Indiana. They have Halls for everything. It is not a grandiose place of legends, it's a capital-driven tourist attraction, located in Cleveland, the Fertile Crescent of Rock and Roll that spawned such great groups as...well, not many great groups, I don't have time to cherry pick here.
This is besides the point. Has Rock and Roll really run out of useful candidates to induct? Or is Rock really trying to stake a claim for all other genres? Again:
Africa Bambaataa-in the mid to late 70's, he spurred a cultural movement in the Boogie Down Bronx, DJing block parties to give the youth something to do. He later teamed up with Renaissance man Arthur Baker and Funk and Soul pioneer James Brown to name a few collaborators. He and the Zulu Nation helped shape the early age of Hip Hop as we know it.
Nothing to do with Rock and Roll. Nothing.
Beastie Boys- one could make a claim that their marraige of hardcore rock ideals and aesthetic with the booming bap of Rick Rubin's 808 drum machine could make them semi-suitable candidates. I semi-agree. Only semi-wise, though.
Chic- The music was funky and made you dance like nothing else. Unless you were white, because white people dance like uncomfortable robots with self esteem issues. But that's the core of the issue. This music is not rock and roll. It spans several genres, but last time I checked Rock and Roll wasn't defined as any music played with a guitar, bass, drum and singing.
Dave Clark Five - Sure, why not. It would get the naysayers like this guy off of your collective back, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:
"They were a hard driving group who played with all their heart and soul. Their music is still played today by a lot of people. Mike Smith had one of the best voices of the time and maybe in all of rock and roll. They sold over 50 million records as a group and they should be in the Hall of Fame."
Playing with their heart and soul? I'm sure that's easy criteria to assess. There has to be some universal gauge for heart and soul lying around. And no, their music is not played by a lot of people. Only old codgers and indie bands doing Garageband remixes. Also, when was the last time you read or heard anything about Mike Smith being a great vocalist? Never. That's right, never. Howling Wolf, Chuck Berry, John Lennon, Robert Plant, Harry Nilsson, the list goes on. And it usually does so without Mike Smith. Fuck you.
Donna Summer - What the fuck? What the fuck is going on here? Seriously, like, what the fuck? She did a disco cover of "The Wanderer?" I just...fuck. Is this...where am I? I'm blinded by this...Wait, seriously, I'm writing about Donna Summer and Rock. No. Disco. She did disco. Instrumentally, there were some...nevermind, it's fruitless.
This hurts too much to even finish the list. The real kicker is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria for a candidate:
"Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll."
Awful. Rock has been teetering on the brink of extinction for a while now, but that perpetuation line is a kick in the crotch of the movement itself.
The idea that a form of music that was so alive is now dead is sad enough. To state that other genres are mere perpetuations of Rock is just wrong. If it was true, and we're basing this on honest to god chains of influence, rock came out of the Chicago and New Orleans Jazz scenes, which were in turn birthed from the New Orleans brothel house music. So really this should be the New Orleans Brothel House Music Hall of Fame, and it should encompass all music everywhere.
A message to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: No need to be pathetic. Why not choose from any number of great bands out there who deserve a ridiculous and arbitrary award? Husker Du, Minor Threat, Black Flag, Television, New York Dolls, etc. Rock and Roll is great, and you don't need to grab other genres to make yourself feel good.
Unless you're Madonna. There was supposed to be a humorous drum shot there. Nevermind.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Weird and Easy
I've really got to stop pillaging from the fruitful tree that is Pitchfork. My favorite thing about their site is the relentless amount of indie-isms abounding. This is a website dedicated to underground music, but really it's nothing of the sort. Go read the best new music. Who's there? Jens Lekman? Deerhunter? Black Kids?
Nope, it's the kings of the underground, the radical, the unsigned, the DIY enthusiasts- Radiohead. Listen: either you want to be Rolling Stone, or you don't. No more of this toeing the line nonsense. We all know that Radiohead makes some great music. I'm pretty sure that they could drop a hot load into a CD case, close it, put it inside a manila envelope, crap even more hot load inside of the envelope, and then send it to any record company in the world and they would put it out.
Thom Yorke's a good songwriter/lead singer. Jonny Greenwood and that Ed guy are great guitarists. Phil and Colin are a good rhythm section. We all know this. Seriously. Why even review a record that everyone knows is going to be solid at the least?
Oh yeah, so you can use a bunch of adjectives, verbs and nouns! I forgot about that. Here is a full list of every descriptive phrase that showed up in this review:
-overlong and scattershot
-guitar-centric compositions
-user friendly
-glacial distance
-dollops of reverb
-mulched up drum intro
-zestful guitar line
-gold mine of one-off fills
-jazzier, fluid guitar line
-eschews verse/chorus/verse structure
-sludgy riff
-skronks along noisily
-keening melodies and immutable prettiness
-drain-circling arpeggios
-skeletal rhythm section in cavernous swaths of glockenspiel
-syrupy strings
-slinky, elongated falsetto backed by frosty, clanging percussion and a meandering guitar line
-woozily beautiful things
-lethargic, chipped-at guitar chords
-slow, R.E.M.-shaped ballad
- spry guitar workout
-breakneck conclusion
-breathless closing rant
-"Pyramid Song" in the making
-circling piano coda
-bassline that seems to promise a climax that never comes
-rickety drum beat and shuddering percussions
-real life drums
-barely distinguishable electronic counterpart
-piano gently uncoils
-a fitting close to such a human album
I don't even know where to start, so I'll start with the end. A human album? I'll have to admit, I liked it better when Yorke and company made animal albums. Yorke's solo manimal work is much better as well.
My time on this library-owned computer is finishing up, so I'll finish this post later. Until next time, just read more about Deerhunter. It's good for you.
I promise.
Nope, it's the kings of the underground, the radical, the unsigned, the DIY enthusiasts- Radiohead. Listen: either you want to be Rolling Stone, or you don't. No more of this toeing the line nonsense. We all know that Radiohead makes some great music. I'm pretty sure that they could drop a hot load into a CD case, close it, put it inside a manila envelope, crap even more hot load inside of the envelope, and then send it to any record company in the world and they would put it out.
Thom Yorke's a good songwriter/lead singer. Jonny Greenwood and that Ed guy are great guitarists. Phil and Colin are a good rhythm section. We all know this. Seriously. Why even review a record that everyone knows is going to be solid at the least?
Oh yeah, so you can use a bunch of adjectives, verbs and nouns! I forgot about that. Here is a full list of every descriptive phrase that showed up in this review:
-overlong and scattershot
-guitar-centric compositions
-user friendly
-glacial distance
-dollops of reverb
-mulched up drum intro
-zestful guitar line
-gold mine of one-off fills
-jazzier, fluid guitar line
-eschews verse/chorus/verse structure
-sludgy riff
-skronks along noisily
-keening melodies and immutable prettiness
-drain-circling arpeggios
-skeletal rhythm section in cavernous swaths of glockenspiel
-syrupy strings
-slinky, elongated falsetto backed by frosty, clanging percussion and a meandering guitar line
-woozily beautiful things
-lethargic, chipped-at guitar chords
-slow, R.E.M.-shaped ballad
- spry guitar workout
-breakneck conclusion
-breathless closing rant
-"Pyramid Song" in the making
-circling piano coda
-bassline that seems to promise a climax that never comes
-rickety drum beat and shuddering percussions
-real life drums
-barely distinguishable electronic counterpart
-piano gently uncoils
-a fitting close to such a human album
I don't even know where to start, so I'll start with the end. A human album? I'll have to admit, I liked it better when Yorke and company made animal albums. Yorke's solo manimal work is much better as well.
My time on this library-owned computer is finishing up, so I'll finish this post later. Until next time, just read more about Deerhunter. It's good for you.
I promise.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
time to like another band!
all signs point to black kids (the name of the band) being totally hot right now. all the essential ingredients of indie fame are there: awkward synths abound, the lead singer sounds like robert smith doused in reverb, the songs are "dance songs" without even a hint of a backbeat (perfect for white audiences), and the choruses are dependably louder than the verses (which makes rock critics happy). the band's self-released EP ("wizard of ahhhs") is available for download at their myspace page. check it out for tomorrow's hype today.
if anybody's reading this, i'd be interested to see if you actually like these songs ("i'm not gonna teach your boyfriend how to dance with you" is apparently good). please leave a comment explaining what you enjoyed. usually when i make such a request, i'd be baiting someone into a fight. this time, however, i'm genuinely curious.**
to my ears, it sounds like music meant for a john hughes movie (maybe "the breakfast club" or "weird science"). it's not uniquely terrible in any way; it just doesn't seem exciting or new. perhaps "indie" music has, at last, fully evolved into the new bubblegum pop.
pitchfork tells me that black kids "make catchy, tightly executed songs that put a memorable stamp on pop's classic themes." catchy? perhaps. tightly executed? whatever (claims this vapid are tough to disagree with). i hear "classic themes" all over the place, but what their "memorable stamp" is, i can't quite tell.
black kids don't have a label yet, but it's only a matter of time. and who knows? maybe they'll make a terrific debut record and i'll be eating my words. but i can't avoid the feeling that they're destined to be yet another moderately fun band, just waiting for effete college students to chew them up and spit them out.
in the course of his review, marc hogan manages to drop the arcade fire, the go! team, morrissey, jim henson's "labyrinth", and motown (most of these references make sense, but that last one really comes out of left field). critics love saying that stuff reminds them of other stuff, and "wizard of ahhhs" certainly lends itself to that practice. maybe this is what's good about it.
in the end, this episode seems to me like one of the final stages in "indie" music's regression into irrelevance. entering our seventh year of global war, our fifth year occupying the heart of the middle east, as the constitution continues to be dismantled amendment by amendment, we are told to enjoy songs that even a young molly ringwald may have found trite.
whatever keeps the educated class in lline, i guess.
** i really mean this. feed me your thoughts.
if anybody's reading this, i'd be interested to see if you actually like these songs ("i'm not gonna teach your boyfriend how to dance with you" is apparently good). please leave a comment explaining what you enjoyed. usually when i make such a request, i'd be baiting someone into a fight. this time, however, i'm genuinely curious.**
to my ears, it sounds like music meant for a john hughes movie (maybe "the breakfast club" or "weird science"). it's not uniquely terrible in any way; it just doesn't seem exciting or new. perhaps "indie" music has, at last, fully evolved into the new bubblegum pop.
pitchfork tells me that black kids "make catchy, tightly executed songs that put a memorable stamp on pop's classic themes." catchy? perhaps. tightly executed? whatever (claims this vapid are tough to disagree with). i hear "classic themes" all over the place, but what their "memorable stamp" is, i can't quite tell.
black kids don't have a label yet, but it's only a matter of time. and who knows? maybe they'll make a terrific debut record and i'll be eating my words. but i can't avoid the feeling that they're destined to be yet another moderately fun band, just waiting for effete college students to chew them up and spit them out.
in the course of his review, marc hogan manages to drop the arcade fire, the go! team, morrissey, jim henson's "labyrinth", and motown (most of these references make sense, but that last one really comes out of left field). critics love saying that stuff reminds them of other stuff, and "wizard of ahhhs" certainly lends itself to that practice. maybe this is what's good about it.
in the end, this episode seems to me like one of the final stages in "indie" music's regression into irrelevance. entering our seventh year of global war, our fifth year occupying the heart of the middle east, as the constitution continues to be dismantled amendment by amendment, we are told to enjoy songs that even a young molly ringwald may have found trite.
whatever keeps the educated class in lline, i guess.
** i really mean this. feed me your thoughts.
Monday, October 15, 2007
various things
a fellow i recently went through great pains to slime has just written a lovely article about battles' live show. if you haven't heard "mirrored" (my favorite of the year), you should. if you have heard their recordings, but have not seem them live, you should. these are four adventurous, tasteful, and above all spectacular musicians operating at the top of their game. "independent" music doesn't often get much better than this, and i'm very pleased to see that critics are actually giving them the praise they deserve ("math-rock" is usually little more than a punch line).
on a tangential note, i noticed that j-temp had to explain our project all over again (as if the picture at the top weren't crystal clear). allow me to add that if i can aggravate critics to one tenth of the degree that they aggravate musicians, i will consider my efforts successful.
finally, i've recently been working at a job that requires me to wake up much earlier than a lazy human being ever should. on account of this, my interneting has waned, and the blog hasn't been kept up (i haven't even ripped the new fiery furnaces record yet). fortunately for me -- and for my vast throng of loyal readers -- that job has been replaced by one that is much easier on this ol' sloth. regular vitriol will return shortly. in the mean time, enjoy this bit of the funny.
on a tangential note, i noticed that j-temp had to explain our project all over again (as if the picture at the top weren't crystal clear). allow me to add that if i can aggravate critics to one tenth of the degree that they aggravate musicians, i will consider my efforts successful.
finally, i've recently been working at a job that requires me to wake up much earlier than a lazy human being ever should. on account of this, my interneting has waned, and the blog hasn't been kept up (i haven't even ripped the new fiery furnaces record yet). fortunately for me -- and for my vast throng of loyal readers -- that job has been replaced by one that is much easier on this ol' sloth. regular vitriol will return shortly. in the mean time, enjoy this bit of the funny.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Go Neil!!
Props of the day to Mr. Drum Boner himself, Neil Peart, who was named by Blender as the second worst lyricist in rock! Only the mighty Sting himself rated higher (lower?), and while I haven't seen a full list, this tidbit from Reuters is a pure delight:
Blender described Canadian rocker Peart's lyrics as "richly awful tapestries of fantasy and science."
Pretty much, yeah.
God, I want to listen to "Marathon" right now.
Blender described Canadian rocker Peart's lyrics as "richly awful tapestries of fantasy and science."
Pretty much, yeah.
God, I want to listen to "Marathon" right now.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
A Brief Fungasm
I have very limited access to the interwebertory these days, but I'd just like to remind all the 8 readers of this blog:
This website is based on the idea of criticizing criticism. Take things personally if you must, that's kind of the point.
If you find something you dislike about our criticisms of criticisms, critique us. Sometimes we'll criticize your critique of our critiques of someone's criticism, and other times we'll nod and say, "Oh yeah, solid point." Make us think twice the next time we hate on Interpol.
Never mind. Don't do that. Carlos D is a turd.
This website is based on the idea of criticizing criticism. Take things personally if you must, that's kind of the point.
If you find something you dislike about our criticisms of criticisms, critique us. Sometimes we'll criticize your critique of our critiques of someone's criticism, and other times we'll nod and say, "Oh yeah, solid point." Make us think twice the next time we hate on Interpol.
Never mind. Don't do that. Carlos D is a turd.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
top ten ways to bury your head in your ass
it would be best if i began by saying outright that i find this to be one of the more irritating bits of writing i've ever come across (and i spend a fair amount of time trolling the right-wing internets). nick southall is a critic who states -- almost with pride -- that he is "not an engineer or a musician." still, he seems to think himself uniquely qualified to tell musicians how to make better records.
indeed, the title of this odious turd of a piece is: "top ten ways to make better records".
i am a musician. and i'm a lucky guy, because nick is graciously writing this piece for my own benefit -- and for the benefit of all musicians who try to express themselves. after not liking a lot of records, he's "come to the inevitable, ineffable conclusion that musicians are often fumbling in the dark during the recording and production process." he continues: "many musicians don't know what their best material is, and even if they do, they don't know how to make the most of it half the time anyway, and so the ostensibly simple process of making good records gets repeatedly cocked-up by people who ought to know better, if they could only remember the things they loved about records when they were just fans themselves."
let's try to absorb all of the bullshit in that last bit of paragraph. musicians don't know how to record music, how to differentiate their good works from their bad ones, how to "make the most" of their best songs, how to avoid cocking up the "ostensibly simple [!] process of making good records," and to top it all off, they don't even remember what they love about music (because they're so distracted by making it). jeez, these musician guys sound really really stupid.
aside from working in the service industry, is there anything they CAN do?
hang on one second. hold down the meatballs! the obvious question is: what makes a critic, who admits to having nothing but second-hand knowledge about the whole process of recording, think he can the supply advice that will shelter musicians from their own bad taste? granted that musicians are totally dumb, what makes this guy so fucking clever? amazingly enough, it's precisely because he's not a musician that he feels his thoughts will be of value. "as a music journalist, and more importantly as a music fan, i've spent a lot of time paying a lot of attention to a lot of records, researching how they're made and talking to the people who make them." if only we could all just talk to musicians, we wouldn't even need his advice. sadly, you go to war with the army you have, so onward and upward.
as far as the specific advice he offers is concerned, there are few surprises. record live if your band sounds better live, a 40 minute cd is better than a 75 minute one (hat tip to j-temp for his previous work on the absurd concept of "exhausting" music), don't overcompress stuff ("it sounds crap"), don't get too stoned, be creative with sequencing, and so forth. it's not that he gives any advice that's particularly BAD; it's just all so OBVIOUS. he writes as if "be economical with time" were some sort of epiphany worthy of publication. that southall thinks any of this advice is uncharted territory for musicians only goes to further establish how out of touch he is with the actual experience of being creative.
but beyond nuts and bolts idiocy, there's something so essentially arrogant and stupid about the whole project. the entire piece is written from the premise that nick is better at listening to music than the people who make it -- which is to say, it's a load of self-serving, narcissistic nonsense. one more time: critics are not special. being a critic does not make you smarter, and it doesn't help you understand music in any noteworthy way. all they do is listen to songs, and then talk about whether or not they like them. everyone does this. as a profession, it impresses mostly fellow english majors, and practically nobody else.
creativity is about embracing risk. criticism is about SHIELDING yourself from risk. nick doesn't understand the difference (because he's not very smart). he thinks his experience evaluating music makes him better equipped to understand the process of making music (imagine a homeless man advising a room full of chefs on the culinary arts -- and justifying this by saying, "i've eaten a lot of bad shit in my day."). and so nick offers advice only on how to avoid fucking up, which is easily the least effective and most self-centered approach an artist can possibly take. creative people take risks; critics fear them.
his tenth and final piece of advice is: "don't be afraid to follow, or ignore, any and all advice you may be privy to, including this. it's your record after all." again, hold down the meatballs. has he just revoked his original statement that musicians are "fumbling in the dark" when it comes to being musicians? is he trying to insulate himself from the possibility that someone would find his advice condescending? is this a recognition that the very idea of such an article necessitates it being an utter waste of time? his world-weary knowledge of records is slamming right into his disingenuous populism. this is fingernails-on-a-blackboard cognitive dissonance. really impressive stuff.
in a discussion about the traffic in los angeles, larry david once said, "sometimes it gets so bad you can hardly breathe." when it occurs to me that dime store fools like nick southall actually hold sway over the success of "independent" musicians, i think i know what he means.
indeed, the title of this odious turd of a piece is: "top ten ways to make better records".
i am a musician. and i'm a lucky guy, because nick is graciously writing this piece for my own benefit -- and for the benefit of all musicians who try to express themselves. after not liking a lot of records, he's "come to the inevitable, ineffable conclusion that musicians are often fumbling in the dark during the recording and production process." he continues: "many musicians don't know what their best material is, and even if they do, they don't know how to make the most of it half the time anyway, and so the ostensibly simple process of making good records gets repeatedly cocked-up by people who ought to know better, if they could only remember the things they loved about records when they were just fans themselves."
let's try to absorb all of the bullshit in that last bit of paragraph. musicians don't know how to record music, how to differentiate their good works from their bad ones, how to "make the most" of their best songs, how to avoid cocking up the "ostensibly simple [!] process of making good records," and to top it all off, they don't even remember what they love about music (because they're so distracted by making it). jeez, these musician guys sound really really stupid.
aside from working in the service industry, is there anything they CAN do?hang on one second. hold down the meatballs! the obvious question is: what makes a critic, who admits to having nothing but second-hand knowledge about the whole process of recording, think he can the supply advice that will shelter musicians from their own bad taste? granted that musicians are totally dumb, what makes this guy so fucking clever? amazingly enough, it's precisely because he's not a musician that he feels his thoughts will be of value. "as a music journalist, and more importantly as a music fan, i've spent a lot of time paying a lot of attention to a lot of records, researching how they're made and talking to the people who make them." if only we could all just talk to musicians, we wouldn't even need his advice. sadly, you go to war with the army you have, so onward and upward.
as far as the specific advice he offers is concerned, there are few surprises. record live if your band sounds better live, a 40 minute cd is better than a 75 minute one (hat tip to j-temp for his previous work on the absurd concept of "exhausting" music), don't overcompress stuff ("it sounds crap"), don't get too stoned, be creative with sequencing, and so forth. it's not that he gives any advice that's particularly BAD; it's just all so OBVIOUS. he writes as if "be economical with time" were some sort of epiphany worthy of publication. that southall thinks any of this advice is uncharted territory for musicians only goes to further establish how out of touch he is with the actual experience of being creative.
but beyond nuts and bolts idiocy, there's something so essentially arrogant and stupid about the whole project. the entire piece is written from the premise that nick is better at listening to music than the people who make it -- which is to say, it's a load of self-serving, narcissistic nonsense. one more time: critics are not special. being a critic does not make you smarter, and it doesn't help you understand music in any noteworthy way. all they do is listen to songs, and then talk about whether or not they like them. everyone does this. as a profession, it impresses mostly fellow english majors, and practically nobody else.
creativity is about embracing risk. criticism is about SHIELDING yourself from risk. nick doesn't understand the difference (because he's not very smart). he thinks his experience evaluating music makes him better equipped to understand the process of making music (imagine a homeless man advising a room full of chefs on the culinary arts -- and justifying this by saying, "i've eaten a lot of bad shit in my day."). and so nick offers advice only on how to avoid fucking up, which is easily the least effective and most self-centered approach an artist can possibly take. creative people take risks; critics fear them.
his tenth and final piece of advice is: "don't be afraid to follow, or ignore, any and all advice you may be privy to, including this. it's your record after all." again, hold down the meatballs. has he just revoked his original statement that musicians are "fumbling in the dark" when it comes to being musicians? is he trying to insulate himself from the possibility that someone would find his advice condescending? is this a recognition that the very idea of such an article necessitates it being an utter waste of time? his world-weary knowledge of records is slamming right into his disingenuous populism. this is fingernails-on-a-blackboard cognitive dissonance. really impressive stuff.
in a discussion about the traffic in los angeles, larry david once said, "sometimes it gets so bad you can hardly breathe." when it occurs to me that dime store fools like nick southall actually hold sway over the success of "independent" musicians, i think i know what he means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)