Music Writemare

rolls eyes

2011-07-07T17:44:00.004-05:00

from this: "There's an entire Arch Snarky Commenter persona people now rush to adopt, in which they read things on the Internet and then compete to most effectively roll their eyes at it."

one thing music critics really struggle with is writing about music, and this has been one of the primary beefs we at the writemare have had with them. when they "like" an album, all they can talk about is a lead singer's life story, her "backstory" in the language of our television age. more than anything else, what gets evaluated is whether or not a particular artist or band should be making music.

it's my thinking that most listeners and fans don't hear music in this way. people who like having their self-image fed back to them watch movies. people listen to music because it sounds good to them.

critics aren't different, i don't think, at least not at first. what happens is that sooner or later they have to write six paragraphs about an album they like, and have to scramble because, for the most part, they never acquired a vocabulary capable of describing music. if you don't know what words to use in order to describe and discuss music meaningfully, you will inevitably revert to talking about people.

so i proudly roll my eyes at the above-linked column, in which nitsuh abebe discusses discussions of identity as they relate to music and musicians. "We like to imagine that the sounds [musicians are] making are some raw, uncalculated outpouring of the soul inside." i know you do.

i like writing music that makes me smile. when i was 11 years old, i didn't want to be like jimi hendrix, i wanted to play like jimi hendrix (fail, btw). like most musicians, i don't practice my soul, i practice my instrument. i can practically feel abebe's eyes rolling.

we are all john milton now

2011-04-29T15:22:00.003-05:00

from a pitchfork "poptimist" column that i don't care to link to:

"Consumerism makes Miltons of us all."

this from a writer who actually BOASTS about having forgotten all but a single line of Paradise Lost.

listen, Tom Ewing (hopefully he's got a google alert on his own name), consumerism makes us many things: petty, forgetful, arrogant, judgmental, blind to the suffering of others, alienated, furious, etc. but not, i repeat NOT, divinely inspired poets.

by the by, work and this one pretty dame have prevented me from blogging recently. also weed. fortunately nobody cares.

anyway, how's your biblical epic coming along? mine's okay, i guess.

everything's gone

2011-01-23T10:32:00.004-06:00

hi. i just wrote a column about minimalism without mentioning a single minimalist. i end up calling an idea john cage came up with "enoid" (an adjective meaning as or pertaining to eno). then i talk about facebook and apps for a while. i'm not sure if i've listened to steve reich or terry riley.

i say things like this: "Pop, for instance, is becoming more iterative."

i ask questions like this: "Why is this sound here instead of not?"

i began this whole thing with an anecdote about a bar with exposed pipes. i'm most likely a suburban twat, so this struck me as a very provocative decision.

i eat pieces of shit for breakfast.

without comment, for now

2010-12-23T11:41:00.003-06:00

from the top 100 songs of the year, which i have been left off of, AGAIN:

"One of the dominant sounds of independent music in the past few years has been 60s girl-group pop swathed in a cocoon of distortion."

much to say about this one, but let it soak in first.

shall i complain?

2010-12-19T11:48:00.005-06:00

i propose that pitchfork shrink it's year-end best albums list back down to 20, or maybe even 10. wavvves, gil scott-heron, the national, four tet, sufjan stevens... there's plenty of fluff to choose from.

just to waste a little more of your time, i also think they should go back to a simple 1 to 5 star rating system. in their current system, a 7.4 essentially means the album is 74% good. the absurdity of this system is only magnified when something is deemed 100% good, further so when they don't really bother to write about the music or even relevant context. kanye's record is, of course, The Best Of The Year.

here's just one example of this kind of sloppy writing, in the paragraph about Girls' EP, which I will excerpt in its entirety to pad my own meager sunday post:

"Girls' 2009 debut, Album, was an instant classic, a blast of dizzy, wounded love from a band with an immediate, innate grasp of all things guitar-pop. But frontman Christopher Owens has had a rough life, and people with rough lives have a sad tendency to flame out early. It's easy to imagine Album being Girls' one great statement before the demons that helped Owens write his songs drowned his voice completely. So it's a great relief to hear Broken Dreams Club, a clear indication that this band is in it for the long haul. Broken Dreams Club comes from the same aesthetic universe as Album, but it's relaxed to the point of languor. Old-school Nashville pedal steel and crisp Cotton Club horns find their way in, and a warm oldies-radio vibe pervades. But we're still dealing with despair and hopelessness, and Owens still expresses this stuff in the most simple and direct terms possible: 'When I said that I loved you, honey, I knew it from the very start/ When I said that I loved you, honey, I knew that you would break my heart.' At the center of it all sits 'Carolina', a lazy sprawl that takes the band's own 'Hellhole Ratrace' to a more peaceful place." --Tom Breihan

breihan, you fucking twit, go back and edit this part: "people with rough lives have a sad tendency to flame out early." please, compensated music blogger, tell me more about people with rough lives and their sad tendencies. it is tragic how so many of them die after releasing one guitar-pop record.

but i digress, and i also count one fucking sentence about music in that whole abortion of a blurb. the rest has more of a Behind The Music voice-over feel to it.

The Broken Dreams Club EP has six songs. how the fuck do you write 210 words about six songs, and only find time to mention one of them? as a matter of fact, how the fuck is the teaser EP for this guy's sophomore full-length the 22nd best album of the year?

the list this year has a little player embedded under each album's name, where you can press play to hear a 20-second clip from one some on the record. there's also a link that says "buy mp3". lulz.

finally, i'd like to register how upset i am at the pornification of joanna newsom, shown here doing a harp-tease for a blurry neil patrick harris. give it a rest, assholes.

o hai blog!

2010-12-09T00:30:00.002-06:00

a man is a protagonist. or, at least, he sees himself that way. we watch a lot of television. sometimes we read books, but mostly we just watch tv. either way, nearly all the stories we come across concern male protagonists as they struggle for things.

the sheer volume of these stories with which we have interacted has more or less driven most of us men insane. our lives become an unpleasant symptom of the stories we consume. the protagonist struggles against things and against people, but our struggle is, above all, to be the protagonist -- to become the hero of our own story.

as i said, this is insanity. the world is not a stage. every element of fiction is carefully crafted by people to make the whole thing meaningful. life is, well, not like that.

Pitchfork and the Perfect 10.0

2010-11-23T11:19:00.003-06:00

I'm going to skip a lot of bullshit and just say it: Nowhere in this rambling 12 paragraph essay does Ryan Dombal really talk music.

Yes, he mentions Aphex Twin or Gil-Scott Heron sampling, but that pretty much sums up his exploration of the music portion of the record.

I get it. Hip hop is a difficult beast to critique in any era. In the 90's you had dusty drumbeats that were five or six combined samples of a snare from one record, a ride cymbal from another, all played expertly and rarely quantized. In the 80's it was either the tinny bap of the Linn drum machine or the pure sine wave of an 808.

Hip hop has a tendency to sound homogeneous in a popular context. Today it's the skittering 16th note hi-hat beats, the INCESSANT auto-tuning, and a Southern style of rapping that champions simplicity of hook over actual narrative skill. So tell me why and how Kanye's record has achieved perfection.

Martial drums? Lurking synths? Is that it? Is the music exuberant, sad or angry? Is it in minor or major keys? Is it minimalist or maximalist? How are his recordings different than, say, the work of his contemporaries? Has he gone beyond his contemporaries? If so, how? How is the mix? How is the track order?

Although I understand the need to provide cultural context, I don't want to read an article about his Twitter hijinks. If you give a record a perfect 10, tell me why. You write music reviews for a website that rates them from 0-10. Outside of comparing Kanye to Michael Jackson ad infinitum, I see no actual reason this album receives a 10. It has samples, yes, and drum beats, and clever rhymes, but somehow it is, "...a blast of surreal pop excess that few artists are capable of creating, or even willing to attempt."

Is the rating based on Kanye's sheer braggadocio? Are these reviews even based on music anymore? Does it even matter? Does anyone actually need music reviews when you can preview or steal the music and judge for yourself? Based on this article that crudely places image over content, I would say good riddance.

I like Kanye's music a lot and I enjoy reading about it. I am a nerd. I just can't understand how one writes a biography of an artist's career between records, sticks in some lyrical excerpts that are completely out of context without the music or surrounding lyrics, casts him as a misunderstood genius, and calls it a music review.

Also, I think the true question is thus:

How does Kanye's "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" stand up against Pitchfork's last completely insane perfect 10.0, And You Will Know Us By the Trail of Death's "Source Tags and Codes?"

phootball phriday: jets bye week edition

2010-10-22T12:56:00.002-05:00

my team's on vacation, so the best games this weekend are nebraska @ oklahoma state, and lsu @ auburn.

"stayin' alive" was recorded at 103 beats-per-minute, and it is the tempo that a white audience has the easiest time dancing to.

phootball phriday: be nice to your neighbors edition

2010-10-15T12:52:00.002-05:00

ravens @ patriots
can the patriots win without randy moss? they've sort of been doing it for almost a year, so i don't see why not. but the schedule looks tough, and defensively this patriots team is not as good as we've come to expect from belichick. overall, the team is full of young players, and with eight picks in the first four rounds of next year's draft, i fully believe that belichick is building his next super-team, which may take shape a few years down the line. baltimore is an interesting test to see how competitive new england will be this year. the ravens, having already beaten the steelers (without roethlessberger) and the jets (without an offense), could do a lot for their reputation by beating the patriots (without moss). but i wouldn't go putting this team in the super bowl yet: their one loss was in week 2 to the hapless, terrible cincinnati bengals, and this does not look good on a resume. in that game, joe flacco threw four interceptions, and the ravens scored only 10 points for the second time in a row to open the season. since then, they've really picked up their offense, averaging 24 points over the last three games. give ray lewis and that defense three touchdowns and a field goal, and they'll win every time. i like the ravens in this game, as the patriots will probably need a couple weeks to get used to life without moss. but until joe flacco shows more consistency, and convinces me that that four INT performance against cincy was a fluke, i would view any super bowl predictions with a healthy dose of skepticism.

lions @ giants
speaking of healthy doses of skepticism, the giants. as i write this, the giants are number one in the nfl in yards allowed. this is the same team that, all of three weeks ago, gave up almost 70 points in two games. so what happened? well, the bears came to town, and my prediction of mike martz having a field day against a witless giants defense was slightly off the mark. the giants racked up ten sacks in the game, knocking out two quarterbacks. osi umenyora and justin tuck look, once again, like guys who won a super-bowl not all that long ago. but i won't jump off my "giants suck" bandwagon, not at the moment at least. this is a team that gets frustrated when things don't go their way, and when the giants get frustrated, they seem to loose lopsided games. top-flight teams don't loose by three scores to the titans. the giants seem to be ready, at the drop of a hat, to stop trying; if adversity strikes again, i won't expect them to get back up. adversity may come to town in the form of the lions. in spite of the fact that everyone understands how much better today's lions are than the 0-16 team of two years ago, detroit still found themselves with a gnarly losing streak they needed to break. and break it they did, with a 38-point win over the also-up-and-coming rams. shaun hill has been lights out filling in for matthew stafford, and javhid best, much to my whatever-the-opposite-of-surprise is, is an early rookie of the year candidate (but he'll probably loose it to bradford). at 1-4, the lions come into jersey desperate for a win over a contending team. with the nfc north looking all screwy and injured, a win over the giants could put detroit right in the middle of things, so go with the lions, who need it more. on the other hand, if the giants get another ten sacks, then maybe -- just maybe -- they might not totally suck.

oakland @ san francisco
ah, the niners. what a fucking disaster. if a team is widely picked to make the playoffs, and not infrequently picked as a super bowl contender, they probably shouldn't get blown out by seattle and kansas city. san francisco lost those two games by a combined score of 61-16. their other three losses were excruciatingly close, and all to teams that should be playoff-bound (saints, falcons, eagles). each of those three games could have been wins, had it not been for san francisco's multiple devastating mistakes on both sides of the ball. and that's just why the niners suck so far: if you fuck up really bad nine times in a game, you can kiss it goodbye. it seems like you can count on just that many monumental fuck ups every time the niners take the field. i haven't seen their discipline moving in the right direction and i don't expect it to be transformed in the space of a week. the raiders, meanwhile, are enjoying relatively good times. it really says a lot about how awful oakland football has become that a 2-3 start feels like a winning record. the raiders do look a lot more poised than they have been in the recent past. they haven't been out of a game since their season-opening debacle against tennessee, but neither have they notched a convincing win yet. of course, their big city rivals have yet to notch even an unconvincing win, so the raiders should really be heading into this game as favorites. it exhibits the power of preconceptions that they're one touchdown underdogs. there's no doubt that san francisco matches up well against oakland, especially with the injury to bruce gradkowski. with five division games in the second half of the season, a niner resurgence is not impossible; the team that's currently winning their division is starting a late-round rookie at quarterback (a mormon, no less), so the mountain to climb is not terribly steep. i think the niners beat oakland, and rattle off two more wins before their bye, getting them out of the basement. but i'd still go with oakland to cover the spread.

jets @ broncos
are the jets the best team in the afc?
no. the steelers are much better, and the colts still need to be regarded as the class of the nfl.
but. are the jets playing the best football in the afc RIGHT NOW?
absolutely. everything's falling into place. first, sanchez is five games in and hasn't thrown an interception yet (anyone who watched him last year is really struggling to believe this). second, the running back tandem of ladanian tomlinson and shonn greene is the best in the league. third, the jets defense is terrifying. and fourth, they have the best turnover differential in the entire league. add it all up and you get a team that looks pretty tough to beat right now.
the broncos have a lot of injury problems at half-back, and as a result they have the fourth-worst rushing offense in football. if this jets defense doesn't need to worry about the run at all on sunday, pray for kyle orton. barring a collapse by sanchez (which is utterly terrifyingly possible), or some sort of transcendent tim tebow miracle, i don't see any way for the broncos to win this match-up. my call: jets win by eight hundred million billion.

p.s. drew brees and the saints are obviously suffering the madden curse.

p.p.s. colt mccoy will get his teeth smashed in at pittsburgh, but when all is said and done, he and bradford will be the best quarterbacks to have come out of last year's draft.

inaugural phootball phriday

2010-10-01T11:12:00.004-05:00

redskins @ eagles
for kevin kolb, the combination of sucking for one half and bumping his head real bad proved fatal. michael vick is back and looks prepared to exceed his best seasons in atlanta, where accuracy issues held him back. the new vick is just about perfect. he still has absurd speed for a quarterback, and when evading tackles he looks like a cross between barry sanders and carl lewis. what's most impressive, though, is the fact that he hasn't thrown an interception yet, and seems to have developed the ability to move around in the pocket to extend a play. with the speed weapons the eagles have, this makes vick more or less impossible to gameplan against. but if there's anyone who knows how to stifle andy ried's offense, it's donovan mcnabb, and this would be why you don't trade your all-pro quarterback inside your division. the redskins blew a big lead in week 2 to the texans, and followed that performance up by letting sam bradford get his first win. suddenly, the season-opening triumph over the cowboys feels pretty far away. with green bay and the colts up next, a loss this week could send washington reeling. things would really get interesting if the redskins started 2-0 in the east, but don't count on it. michael vick is the best player in the nfl. eagles by a hefty margin.

niners @ falcons
i'm going to cover two of the teams that i was wrongest about in my preseason round-up. the niners clearly top that list. san francisco was a chic pick to win the west, and i'll admit that i jumped on a bandwagon. week 1 was an embarrassment for san francisco, getting demolished by their much less talented division rival in seattle. apparently, technical difficulties prevented alex smith from getting the plays on time, which meant pete carroll's defense had the drop on them every single snap. a 31-6 final makes that scenario plausible. in week 2, the niners came within a hare's breath of beating the defending super bowl champions. if they had avoided any of three fluke turnovers (a frank gore fumble and two tipped interceptions), they could have won the game. even though they dropped to 0-2, the niners looked like they were ready to turn the season around. but last sunday was deflating, a 31-10 loss to the chiefs, and following the loss, san francisco fired their offensive coordinator.
while i'm sure five days of practice will be more than enough time for the quarterbacks coach to turn things around, the falcons actually beat the saints. with a physical run game, and one of the best receiving tight ends of all time, atlanta will win this game, and ultimately take the nfc south. as for the niners, all's not fucked. if they can beat either the falcons this week, or the eagles next week, there might be eight wins for them in the remainder of the season. oakland, carolina, tampa bay, and denver are all winnable games, and the nfc west is still a division without a single good team. those of us on the bandwagon just have to hope that they can turn their offense around, maybe - i dunno - try giving the ball to crabtree.

ravens @ steelers
every season, this is one of the most fun games of the year. the steelers are off to a 3-0 start WITHOUT A QUARTERBACK! pittsburgh's defense is once again, the best in the nfl. they're giving up 11 points a game! they forced 7 turnovers against tennessee! holy fucking shit! it's a good thing anquan boldin got his touchdowns in last week, because they'll be quite a bit harder to come by on sunday. flacco will get hit hard, and ray rice won't get shit. but baltimore can win without offense as well. they're a top tier defense except for their secondary, and don't expect charlie batch to test that secondary, because charlie batch sucks (hanging 38 on tampa bay is more a sign of a pulse than of talent). this will be a close, low-scoring game, and anyone who thinks they know who's going to win is deluded. it'll come down to which team can make the big play on defense. personally, i believe in troy polamalu, the best defensive player in the league. but if ray lewis or haloti ngata forces a big fumble in the fourth quarter, i wouldn't be surprised.

bears @ giants
here's what i said about the bears just before week 1: "holy shit, the bears suck ass." along with picking the niners to win the west, picking the bears to finish last in their division, behind the lions, is starting to look a little foolish. it certainly didn't look foolish after week 1. as j-temperance said, "i watched megatron win that game," and indeed he did. the serendipitous season-opening win was followed by a win over the cowboys (who may have started slow out of the gate, but are still one of the better teams in the nfc). in that game, jay cutler made mike martz look like a genius, and the bears incorporated all of their best weapons. last monday, helped out by eight thousand green bay penalties, the bears pulled out a last second win. so, 3-0. and their next four games are really fucking soft: giants, panthers, seahawks, redskins. the bears could go into their bye week at 6-1, maybe even 7-0. it'd be quite a feat for a team that pretty much lost to the shaun hill-led lions.
the giants? a soft game? why yes, the giants play like a bunch of foreskins in blue shirts. they've lost their last two game by a combined 43 points. the future looks bleak. detroit, seattle, and jacksonville should still be wins, and you can expect them to eek out a division win or two, but the giants don't stack up against the league's better teams. while i don't think chicago is one of the league's better teams, the giants were in the habit last year of making bad teams look good, and making mediocre teams look invincible. the bears come in confident, and the giants are about to start unraveling. and the jersey turnpike will shed a tear.

bonus pick that doesn't count if i'm wrong: pats will beat the dolphins in miami on monday night.

phootball phursday

2010-09-09T13:51:00.000-05:00

here ya go, fart munchers. just what you wanted from your favorite rarely active music criticism criticism blog: a preview of all 32 nfl fewzbahl teams. i'm gonna go on a little bender now, i'll be back around week three or four. (p.s. spell check is down, so any errors are the fault of my brain).

AFC EAST

buffalo bills
we'll start at the bottom, ironically with the team that's closer to the arctic circle than any other. ah, the bills. it turns out that if you have no defense, no quarterback, and no offensive line, your pro football team's gonna suck. the bills promptly adressed these problems by spending their #9 pick in the draft on C.J. Spiller, a running back out of clemson. to be clear, Spiller is an amazing talent, and if his body holds up, he'll have a strong year. but with trent edwards calling the signals yet again (only this year without terrell owens), don't expect the bills to have much of an offense. as for the defense, they were horrible last season, and improving said defense didn't seem to be too high a priority, so i see no reason to expect more out of that side of the ball. let's face it, it's a good thing that tim russert is dead, primarilly because he was instrumental in launching the iraq war, but also because if he were still alive, this year's bills would almost definitely do his bloated ass in. buffalo, the city that can't catch a fucking break.

miami dolphins/new england patriots
picking the third place team in the AFC east is interesting. the dolphins certainly seem to be rising, though you have to wonder about their extremely so-so defense, and the fact that their offense relies heavily on ronnie brown, a guy who's had terrible leg injuries two of the last three seasons. as for the patriots, everyone still considers them a powerhouse, and as long as wes welker is on the field, they might be one. but the new england defense is no longer the force it was back when bill belicheck was cheating his way to three super bowls (last year ended about as poorly as a year can, a home playoff blowout loss in which the pats gave up over 200 rushing yards to the admittedly decent ravens). nevertheless, i don't think the balance has shifted all that much. the dolphins still have a ways to climb, and the patriots a long way to fall. tom brady is still very good, in spite of his whole "i'm a monumental douchebag" thing, and chad henne, though he has talent, isn't experienced enough to lead the dolphins to the 29 points a game they'll need to win regularly. so yeah, dolphins in third, patriots in second, though both may make the playoffs as wildcards, but it's obviously way early to be talking about that shit.

new york jets
i had this whole thing ready about how the jets were going to perform sans darelle revis, who, last season, was one of the best cornerbacks in history. revis has been holding out for a new contract with more money in it, and for a moment it looked like he was willing to sit out the whole season. it was going to be interesting, actually, to see if or how the jets would recover in his absence. but a contract was signed, and now things might get a little dull, because the jets dream defense is in tact, and even if mark sanchez throws another 20 interceptions this team will win games on the strength of rex ryan's crazy-ass defense alone. at this moment, and unless they get hit with a wave of crucial injuries, the jets look poised to reach the afc championship again, for another duel with peyton manning. have to wait and see if they have improved enough to get to the next level.

NFC EAST

new york giants
there's a lot of talk about the giants' late-season collapse last year, magnified by the fact that they gave up 40 or more points in three of their final four games. but the truth is that the giants didn't suffer a late-season collapse so much as they enjoyed an early-season fluke, starting off 5-0 against mostly very weak competition. the giants went 3-8 over their final eleven games; over the same span, only three teams in the nfl did worse: the redskins, the rams, and the lions (the bucs, seahawks, and broncos also finished the year 3-8). what do these teams have in common? they're widely understood to be the worst teams in the league. just take a look at the horrible squads that finished stronger than the giants: cleveland, oakland, kansas city. yeesh. the giants rushing attack, once seen as a strength, totally sucked: only twice in the entire season did a single giant rusher have a 100-yard game. and the defense, wow. statistically, they were among the worst units in the nfl, surrendering well over three touchdowns per game. yes, the giants may have drafted to a better pass rush, but don't expect jason pierre-paul's six or seven sacks to have too much of an impact. and sure, kevin boss has a cool name, but he's just a tight end. g-men at the bottom of the east, you heard it here first.

washington redskins
as i said above, the redskins were one of three teams to have a worse finish than the giants. the difference is, the redskins fired their head coach and hired mike shannahan, and traded for donovan mcnabb. both dudes are used to reaching the playoffs. huge changes are afoot: a new defensive scheme, and most likely an increased focus on the running game, which will give mcnabb much more time than he's used to on play action and rollout passes. i don't expect too much out of the skins, but i do think they're almost an 8-8 team now, and if they can find a running back to breakout, they could even leap-frog the eagles. still a lot of work to do in washington, but things are looking up.

philadelphia eagles
the eagles traded their all-pro quarterback inside the division. this is generally regarded as stupid, so they really must believe in kevin kolb. kolb is a spread quarterback from the university of houston, and his skills should translate well to andy reid's "no one ever told me you can run the ball" offense. desean jackson and jeremy maclin are still very very good wide outs, plus they've got this back-up qb called michael vick, who may take over if the young kolb doesn't meet expectations. big problem for philly is their defense, which looked really fucking bad down the stretch last year, including two consecutive embarrassing losses to the division rival cowboys. the eagles did draft with an eye on improving their defense, and they certainly have an offense capable of keeping pace if they find themselves in a shootout. new quarterback, same story: philly wins about ten games, and blows it in the post-season.

dallas cowboys
devotees may recall that i hate the cowboys, mostly because i hate watching w. bush celebrate from an owner's box. too bad for me that the cowboys are gonna be nasty. expect rookie wr dez bryant to have an immediate impact. the good-not-great tony romo now has enough talent around him to really excel, and defensively they can hold their own against most of the league (but not favre). the cowboys are the only team in the east that's in a position to build on success, while their opponents are either scrambling to make drastic changes (eagles, redskins) or living in denial of how bad they suck (giants). as a result, the cowboys will cruise to a division title, and our 43rd president will be able to break out the celebratory blow a little sooner than he did last year. fuck texas, but still, cowboys are stacked.

AFC WEST

oakland raiders
i have a confession to make: i was rooting for jamarcus russell. i still hold out hope that the quasi-literate overweight bust to end all busts will land on some desperate team, earning the chance to prove that it wasn't all his fault: the raiders really suck. and they do. who else would treat a cast-off quarterback from a 4-win team as some sort of savior? yes, rolando mclain and lamarr houston were good draft picks, and the odds of an offense running as poorly as oakland's did last season are slim. the raiders also have a relatively weak schedule which works in their favor. in the end, though, a shit o-line will flummox any offensive adjustments, and a porous secondary will get gouged with regularity. oakland is a city i have a lot of love for, but to my eyes, the raiders remain pure shit.

kansas city chiefs
the chiefs bring on rejected notre dame fat-fuck-head-coach charlie weiss to call the offense, and this will help matt cassell recover from a disappointing '09. also, thomas jones was signed, and though his production will be below last year's level (the line blocking for him is suddenly a lot worse than he's used to), the increased offensive balance will make the chiefs a stronger team. defensively, the chiefs gave up more points last year than any other team in the AFC, and that's a problem. fortunately for my large contingent of readers who are kansas city fans, their draft was tremendous. eric berry and javier arenas will bolster the secondary, dexter mccluster and tony moeaki are both capable of making plays at the next level, and jon asamoah might save cassell from taking a few gnarly hits. unfortunately, the chiefs are still a below-average team, with a below-average quarterback. and an absurdly fat offensive coordinator.

denver broncos
tim. mother. fucking. tebow. do you really think josh mcdaniels and jesus christ are just going to watch kyle orton run the broncos into the ground? fuck that. tim tebow reads the bible. like, every day. denver still needs some work, and a few years to add some better weapons, but i expect the broncos to win between seven and nine games, and in the afc west, that'll give you a commanding hold on second place.

san diego chargers
the chargers will win the west without much trouble (unless tebow really does have the lord behind him). philip rivers is very good, darren sproles and rookie ryan mathews make for a strong running game, and malcolm floyd are very dangerous, and while the defense is a little soft, they're still the best unit in their division. it's too bad that vincent jackson's holdout looks semi-permanent (he and the jets' revis have the same agent), and they will feel the loss of ladanian tomlinson, especially on third downs. all in all, i'd expect them to have a season a lot like last year's: twelve or thirteen wins, followed by a quick playoff exit.

NFC WEST

seattle seahawks
picking the bottom of this division is really challenging. but i think the hawks have the most ground to make up. pete carroll will discover how hard it is to build a dominant program in a league were bribing the best players is the norm. seriously, there's almost nothing to like about this team, from the old-ass quarterback, to the god-awful receiving corps, to the offensive line that is literally made of diarrhea, this is a team that has a really long way to go before they can start winning games regularly. one thing i do expect is an improved defense, because say what you will about carroll, dude can call a defense. that and leon washington might buy them four wins.

st. louis rams
as for the rams, sam bradford, who will apparently be the week 1 starter, only played one full game for oklahoma last season. one can't help but wonder if bradford's body can hold up for a sixteen game season, especially with the rams' o-line in the state that it is. if he can keep his shoulder in one piece, i actually think the rams might be one of this season's surprises. remember how good steven jackson is? yeah. their defense will continue to eat ass for a living, which will prevent them from being a legitimately decent team. but i expect moderately big things from bradford, again barring some horrific career-ending injury.

arizona cardinals
the cardinals have some serious fucking problems. there's no way in hell they'd be a second place team, except for the fact that the nfc west is by far the league's weakest division. kurt warner retired, mostly because tim tebow came into the league, and warner knows better than to confuse god by making him stack the deck for two quarterbacks at once. poor matt leinert, they released his ass, mostly because he's left-handed and everyone hates lefties. also, they let anquan boldin go to baltimore, and they let carlos dansby go to miami. so it's entirely up to beanie wells, tim hightower, and larry fitzgerald to make this team work. good luck with that.

san francisco 49ers
by process of elimination, then, the niners take the west, and they'll deserve it. alex smith seems ready to start playing up to his potential, helped out by michael crabtree stretching the field and vernon davis covering the middle. also helping the niner offense will be their two first-round draft picks, both bruising offensive lineman; the vastly improved line will give their speed receivers time to get down the field, as well as making last year's anemic running game drastically better. head coach mike singletary will have an above-average defense, at least, and an even better one if rookie safety taylor mays can figure out the pro-level game. the addition of ted ginn jr. suddenly gives them one of the best return games in the league. this team is ready to poop all over a terrible division. as for how they'll fare in the playoffs, we need to wait and see how much alex smith can improve in the regular season. even with a bad year from their qb, the niners should be heavily favored.

AFC NORTH

cleveland browns
the browns shocked everyone by winning their last four games in '09. eric mangini actually isn't a terrible coach, he just had his career ruined by brett favre's brief and disappointing stint as a jet. but it doesn't really matter. this division is too good, and neither of their new quarterbacks, jake dellhome and former longhorn colt mccoy, are very good at the moment. josh cribbs can only touch the ball so many times, and mike holmgren, he can't touch the ball at all. don't expect them to loose 11 games again, but don't expect them to win that many either.

cincinnati bengals
this here might be a surprise to some, insofar as last season the bengals went an incredible 6-0 in a very tough division. the addition of terell owens does give them one of the best wide receiver pairs in the nfl, and jordan shipley will be a tremendous slot receiver. the running game will likely stay strong, but defensively there's no denying that the bengals have some issues. ultimately this is a team that won many games last year with fourth-quarter heroics, and i don't trust teams that need a successful two-minute drill so frequently. look for the steelers and ravens to bounce back, and look for cincy to be taken down a peg or two. then look for terell owens to sign a one-year deal with tampa, just to shake things up.

baltimore ravens
the ravens have undergone quite a transformation since defensive coordinator rex ryan left to coach the jets. obviously, any team that has ray lewis is going to be a defensive-minded one, but with joe flacco continuing to mature, and with anquan boldin lining up as the flanker, the ravens have become a pass-heavy shoot-em-up type of offense. with a still incredibly talented defense, and an offense capable of keeping pace in a shootout, you have to like baltimore's chances this year. so why aren't they winning the north? because joe flacco isn't as good as people think he is. if the ravens coaching staff disagreed, they wouldn't have gone as ludicrously run-heavy in the playoffs as they did.

pittsburgh steelers
the steelers dropped a bunch of games last year. some of the losses (bears, chiefs, raiders, browns) were confusing. ben roethlisberger's suspension has been cut to four games, and in our culture of letting rapists go free, this is a relatively harsh punishment. the steelers still have the best linebackers in the nfl, and there is no reason to doubt the strength of their defense overall. the running game remains a question mark, but once roethlisberger returns, you won't notice it as much. up will be up once again, the world will right itself, and the steelers will return to the throne.

NFC NORTH

chicago bears
having just spent a lovely two weeks in chicago, it pains me to say the following: holy shit, the bears suck ass. any defense that can be so adversely affected by a single injury, as the bears were with brian urlacher last year, clearly isn't a very good defense. and any offense that has jay cutler under center clearly isn't a very good offense. pity the poor chicago fans, they'll have to suffer through yet another needlessly cold winter, and they'll have to watch their beloved bears blow chunks for at least one more season.

detroit lions
do you want to know what kind of a horrible state the city of detroit is in? a 2-14 season is a step in the right direction. matthew stafford may one day be a good quarterback, and i expect this year to be better for him than last year was. also, jahvid best was a joke of a steal at the beginning of the second round; look for him to be the top rookie rusher in the nfl. and don't go forgetting ndomikong suh clogging up the middle on defense. it'll take a while to adjust to the lions winning games every now and then. luckily, they'll still be pretty bad overall. maybe they'll get another top-five draft pick, and maybe next year they'll contend. for now, detroit will have to make do with their paltry share of the bailout money, along with their memories of motown and barry sanders.

green bay packers
aaron rogers gets a lot of well-deserved play these days. his performance in last year's wild card game against the cardinals should have been a win, if it hadn't been for green bay's achilles heel: their defense is terrible. seriously, how can a team give up 51 points in the playoffs and still be considered a powerhouse? a lot of people are picking the packers to win the north, and i really think that's insane. i expect rogers to throw for another 4,000 yards, but any defense that has to go against favre twice needs to bring their a-game, and i don't see any reason to think much of their defense's a-game.

minnesota vikings
we all knew favre was coming back. take no more than 20 beat-downs, make no less than $20 million... do you know anyone who would say no? plus, favre really loves slapping grown men on the ass, and he may have realized how unwelcome that is in most settings. all ribbing aside, favre had the best season of his career last year, and if he has anything close to the same production this year, the vikings will repeat as division champs. they return with the same outstanding receivers, and rookie toby gerhardt (who should have gotten more serious consideration for the heisman) actually makes the adrian peterson-anchored running game even stronger. add to that a powerful pass rush and a decent enough secondary and linebacker corps, and the vikings simply have to be one of the favorites to win not just the north, but the entire nfc.

AFC SOUTH

jacksonville jaguars
oh boy.

houston texans
the texans were right on the brink last year, and what this team needs to do is beat the colts once, and they'll be in the playoffs. last season, missed field twice stopped them from beating indy. the texans have an offense that can score a lot of points; andre johnson and matt schaub have terrific chemistry -- good enough to light up plenty of nfl defenses. but the texans aren't good enough on the other side of the ball to stop manning; he'll have to beat himself if the texans are going to get out of the regular season. this could happen, but i wouldn't bet on it.

tennessee titans
now that kerry collins is out of the way, vince young can remind everyone that he's really really good. after taking over last year, the titans were 8-1, with the only loss being to the indy late-season juggernaut. chris johnson is obviously the best running back in the nfl. if he can stay healthy, and if vince young can stay on top of his game, the texans should make the playoffs this year. after an 0-7 start last season, this'll be a very quick turnaround, but i would be surprised if the titans floundered this season.

indianapolis colts
the colts will win 13 or 14 games this year, and most likely march to the afc championship before meeting any resistance. they've already proven that they don't care about going undefeated; once they clinch the division, they'll rest manning and all other indispensable starters. in spite of coming up just short to the saints last year, the colts are still the class of the nfl. only the very best defenses have even a chance against them, and even then, it's not much of one.

NFC SOUTH

tampa bay bucs
josh freeman has a long way to go before he can be a successful quarterback at the nfl level. he doesn't look in front of his throws, and serves up way too many easy interceptions on patterns over the middle. the bucs are improving, and rookie gerald mccoy is going to start helping out their defensive line immediately. but they don't have the sort of defense that can compensate for all the offensive errors they're certain to make. a bad team last year, and a bad one again.

carolina panthers
the unheralded and mostly unheard of matt moore took over late last year after jake delhomme's season was mercifully cut short, and he actually looked pretty good. steve smith is still a phenomenal ace wide receiver, and d'angelo williams provides the panthers with an above-average running game. it'll be interesting to see if jimmy claussen gets a chance to start at some point in the season, for some reason or another. while matt moore raised some eyebrows last year, he's no john elway. jim fox usually fields one of the better defenses in the nfc, and overall they're talented enough to be a decent team, but they're building to something better than they'll be this year.

new orleans saints
the saints flirted with an undefeated season last year. when things got tough, new orleans had the best clutch play-calling in the league. in easier games, the secondary grew rather fond of taking the ball from other teams and scoring. in the super bowl, both of these strengths came together, culminating with sean payton's famous onside kick to open the second half and the less famous but more important pick 6, late in the fourth quarter as peyton manning seemed to be driving towards a victory. drew brees is great, and the saints have a very powerful big play offense. but they caught a lot of breaks in the regular season last year, and while they're still one of the top teams in the league, and undoubtedly good enough to reach the playoffs again, i think they'll encounter a few more bumps in the road, and be a wild card this year, not the almost-undefeated team from '09.

atlanta falcons
ugh, i've run out of words. falcons because matt ryan.

briefly

2010-06-18T15:21:00.004-05:00

at the fork:

"In one sense, things cease to exist when people stop talking about them."

dear marc richardson's brain,

um, no. you do not make things exist simply by talking about them. likewise, real life art does not vaporize when you cease to post about it on the internet.

sincerely,
uticas

P.S. what the fuck does this part even mean?:

"Music that could, from another perspective, seem dead because it's not being shared turns into something intimate that sparkles with a very specific kind of life. Sometimes I listen to 'Love Stepping Out', and it feels like I have the only copy of it in the world, and it ceases to exist whenever I put it back on the shelf."

do the boxer shorts i put in my hamper last night still exist? i better make sure.

the music industry: completely fucked

2010-06-14T10:35:00.003-05:00

i'm late to this party, but apparently the second week of may was THE WORST WEEK FOR ALBUM SALES SINCE THEY STARTED COUNTING THEM IN 1991! fucked.

justin bieber's shit sandwich was number one that week, and it was 300 sales away from being the lowest selling number one album ever.

this was reported on may 20, and since then billboard has updated the script on their website, and it's pretty but it also makes it rather impossible to find out how many copies an album were bought.

that week, 5.3 million albums were sold. TOTAL. that's roughly equal to a third of the population of the LA metropolitan area.

if it's not clear to record execs now, it will be very soon, that no super-clever method of digital distribution is going to repair this situation. they keep producing the shit, but no one's fucking buying it. everyone who wants new music has enough money to steal it.

the record industry: kaput, finito, el deado meato. record companies are zombies, wandering the land, hungry for brains. you have to shoot them in the head!

missing in action

2010-06-10T13:00:00.006-05:00

so a few weeks ago, or something, the New York Times Magazine ran what basically ammounted to a smackdown of MIA. the crux of the article is: bitch be phony; bitch be stupid.

pitchfork was right on it, with their standard "i agree, but i don't agree, so whatever you think you can't get mad at me" approach (which the writer most likely picked up from the NY Times). nitsuh abebe (i wonder why tom breihan wasn't tapped for this piece...) takes the position that while being outspokenly political is fine, being supportive of violent resistence to oppression is STUPID!!! in the end, her music is good, but her beliefs are retarded, and abebe thinks you should enjoy the former and ignore the latter. it's a long and winding piece that manages to completely avoid taking a stance (aside from, of course, support for resistence is dumb -- vote obama!).

for a better written version of more or less the same reaction, click over to pandagon, where amanda marcotte has been fighting the good fight for years and years. i like amanda marcotte, i read her blog a lot. i like what she says about authenticity and music in the linked post: "The purity wars, the authenticity cruising, the impossible standards of perfection, the requirement that musicians and artists who have political content in their art be these Jesus-like figures of political perfection---all that kills the music. And ironically distracts from what is pure and authentic about music, which is the feeling it gives you." it's unfortunate that she finds the need to say that MIA's beliefs are "childish and irresponsible and insensitive". she astutely points to the age-old past-time of marginalizing overtly political women by calling them phony and stupid, but she still can't get through the article without participating in it herself.

i don't love MIA's music. to me it sounds like dolled up reggaeton, which is fine, but hardly mind-bending. i DO, however, think it's fantastic that there is a proudly anti-imperial voice in our culture which has reached millions of people. the belief that powerful people are wrong when they kill and oppress weak people is always viewed as naive. it takes moral courage to say what MIA has said (and more courage still not to back down when challenged by some hack at the Times), and we are a society that, broadly speaking, lacks moral courage. so then: fuck governments, fuck police, fuck armies, and up with artists who say as much.

on a slightly related note: i have this cousin? and she writes for the New York Times? like, the business section? and she has this, like, great education? and years of journalism experience? and she still talks, you know, like this? where the two things you can count on from her sentences are the word "like" and an upward inflection?

of course, no one would ever accuse her of having hypocritical deeply held beliefs. in fact, i don't know if anyone would accuse her of having deeply held beliefs at all (hence her success in the corporate world). anyone who gets angry at the mass-murder of the poorest people on the planet (say, afghans or, i dunno... tamils) is quickly shunted aside. if such a person has those beliefs and becomes successful ON HER OWN, then you can bet your ass that she will be bought off (take a grammy!) only to be ridiculed for her hypocrisy by people who wouldn't know a principled human being if they were hired to write a hit-piece on her.

does that make sense?

UPDATE:
i'm never the least bit surprised to find that someone else on the internet has written what i wanted to say in a more coherent style and with vastly superior reasoning, and i tend to avoid linking to them because such writing often makes me feel dumb. anyway, here's andrew potter ripping the times interview to shreds.

what taco bell is kind of like

2010-05-21T13:09:00.003-05:00

i have seen in my lifetime tens of thousands of taco bell ads. i will still not eat at taco bell for as long as i live.

thus taco bell, to me, is kind of like a guy at a bar who spends the whole night buying drinks for one lesbian.

bringing it all back home

2010-05-21T12:02:00.003-05:00

slightly less than three years ago, i wrote a post about LCD soundsystem, particularly about one fork-head's praise of the (ahem) musician's use of "two chord songs". well, one two chord song in particular, the plodding, barely remarkable "all my friends".

we actually got a comment on that post, meaning either A) people are uniquely excited by pseudonymous blog posts about LCD soundsystem, or B) a few people used to actually read this blog before j-temp got married and i rode into town.

so here's the thing: james murphy is back with another totally insufferable album, full of stupid motherfucking two-chord songs. predictably, pitchfork thinks it's "actually pretty perfect." since each of murphy's previous efforts (entirely derivitive) were vehemently adored by lotsa critics, it's no surprise to see that very little has changed.

the fork review inhabits a world where stealing the same ideas over and over again is "fearless"; where a line like ""Love is an open book to a verse of your bad poetry" is evidence of lyrical prowess. and maybe murphy has shat out another couple of liberal arts indie/frat anthems. to me, though, making drunk people at a party dance takes about as much ingenuity as keeping a mosquito in the air.

"Murphy's vast perspective and all-knowing mien are invaluable assets to his success." ultimately it's not his ability as a musician that keeps him in such good favor with critics of all stripes. it's his "perspective", his "all-knowing mein." he is loved because he and his critics share an obsession with the same two decades of music (when all parties involved were in their twenties), and this obsession shines through in every song he writes, and in every glowing review written about him.

after all, very little is ever said about the unbelievably dull music that accompanies "murphy's vast perspective". the only time sound is ever mentioned, it's in the context of saying "he's conjuring eno" or "he's conjuring bowie" or "he's conjuring iggy pop" or "HE RIDES THE SAME DICKS I DO!!!!" these critics' lack of concern for what they're hearing is matched only by murphy's.

final line of the review: "At first, Murphy showed how to let loose without losing your cool; now he's figuring out how to break down without cracking up."

so there you have it. LCD soundsystem, athem-maker for the "lose your hair, not your self-esteem" movement. and for some reason the kids like it. this fucking country...

a tv, the internet, and a bong: live-blogging the fourth round of the NFL draft

2010-04-24T09:09:00.029-05:00

round 4, pick 1
st. louis rams
mardy gilliard, WR cincinnati
the rams continue to get a little better in a few areas. gilliard was arguably a second or third round talent, and it's no surprise to see him go first here. bradford needs the help, bad.

round 4, pick 2
minnesotta vikings
everson griffen, DE, USC
this dude probably shouldn't be available. but the vikings snag him up early in the fourth. they have this pick because they helped the lions get jahvid best. griffen? good pass rusher, probably a good addition to an already good team.

round 4, pick 3
tampa bay buccaneers
mike williams, WR, syracuse
one of the top wide receivers in the big east goes to one of the worst teams in the league. he could be a steal for the awful bucs.

round 4, pick 4
kansas city chiefs
darryl sharpton, LB, miami
eight and a half tackles a game down at miami. not too much in the way of sacks. also, matt cassell sucks and charlie weis is a fat fat fat.

round 4, pick 5
washington redskins
perry riley, LB, LSU
this guy is actually very good, i'd have certainly guessed better than darryl sharpton, who goes one pick earlier. are the redskins a good team now? depends how much money they throw at terrell owens.

round 4, pick 6
tennessee titans
alterraun vernere, CB, UCLA
the cornerbacks started flying off the board last night. everyone wants to beat peyton manning. this guy won't really help too much. special teamer.

round 4, pick 7
philadelphia eagles
trevard lindley, CB, kentucky
another guy with great speed, but he's less than six feet tall which means he's a cornerback. like i said, flying off the board. meanwhile the eagles count on kevin kolb to win eight million games.

round 4, pick 8
oakland raiders
bruce campbell, OT, maryland
a lot of people actually had the raiders making this pick in the first round, WITH THE NUMBER EIGHT SELECTION. that was obviously crazy, the raiders waited because there were so many tackles available, and drafted very well in the first few rounds. now they get their tackle to protect the incredibly shitty quarterback.

round 4, pick 9
buffalo bills
marcus easley, WR, connecticut
almost 900 yards receiving last year, 8 touchdowns. not bad. but the bills, who were reportedly riding tim tebow's dick really hard, still are.

round 4, pick 10
oakland raiders (from jax)
jacoby ford, WR, clemson
the main weapon in the passing attack from the offense that brought you c.j. spiller. his numbers and his yards-per-catch are pretty good. oakland made a late trade to get this pick. they continue to seem smart in this draft, but jamarcus be jamarcus.

round 4, pick 11
chicago bears
corey wootton, DE, northwestern
the bears get only their second pick of the whole draft because jay cutler was totally worth it. decent player here, as the bears focus mostly on getting that shit defense a little better.

round 4, pick 12
san diego chargers
darrell stuckey, FS, kansas
chargers need to replace cromartie, who's gone to your host's beloved jets. this guy saw a lot of passes in the big 12, but he didn't get in the way of all that many. good idea, not a great player.

round 4, pick 13
seattle seahawks
walter thurmond, CB, oregon
more secondary help for a team being rebuilt. give pete carroll a year or two before he gets seriously fired.

round 4, pick 14
new york jets
joe mcknight, RB, USC
the jets trade up to get mark sanchez's old running back. jets don't care that they have three running backs already, as they saw two of three get hurt last season. mcknight is a very good player, probably should have gone in the third round at some point. jets see too good a player drop too far and snatch him. nice.

round 4, pick 15
new england patriots
Aaron Hernandez, TE, florida
it's actually scary to think about what the patriots will do with this talent. hernandez is very, very, very good and i have no idea why he's this far down. the patriots already drafted a tight end in the second round, and also got taylor price, another good wide receiver, last night. brady getting some help, scary.

round 4, pick 16
baltimore ravens
dennis pitta, TE, byu
a mormon tight end. led his army in receptions last year. actually had three very productive years. the ravens also pick their second tight end of the draft. weird. nevertheless, the ravens have gotten a lot better this off-season. flacco still doesn't scare me, but this team is very good now.

round 4, pick 17
new york giants
phillip dillard, LB, nebraska
led his team in tackles. a couple sacks. plus one interception against sam bradford's back-up at oklahoma. giants needed defense, and they've gotten defense. but i still don't think much of their running game, which they haven't looked at.

round 4, pick 18
pittsburgh steelers
thaddeus gibson, DE, ohio state
the steelers get the guy the jets probably should've. ten sacks over two years and change, plus twelve tackles for loss last year. the steelers just get better on defense, as long as that safety with the long hair stays in.

round 4, pick 19
atlanta falcons
joe hawley, OG, UNLV
a big fat-ass who can't even crack 300 pounds. fourth-rounder, all the way.

round 4, pick 20
houston texans
garrett graham, TE, wisconsin
productive player, 16 career touchdowns in college. everyone likes the tight-ends this round. confused about this one, though. the texans could use a safety and there are plenty around.

round 4, pick 21
miami dolphins
a.j. edds, LB, iowa
very good coverage linebacker at this stage of the draft. underrated player, good snag by the fins.

round 4, pick 22
cincinnati bengals
geno atkins, DT, georgia
another good player drops a little far. good tackle-for-loss guy. bengals needed the help on the d-line. i still think their offense needs work, as it looked pretty tame while getting run over by the jets last year.

round 4, pick 23
philadelphia eagles
keenan clayton, LB, oklahoma
more of a physical safety than a linebacker. clearly the eagles didn't like getting trounced by dallas in the playoffs, maybe this hard-hitter helps out against the run.

round 4, pick 24
philadelphia eagles
mike kafka, QB, northwestern
this dude looked like a big-time quarterback last year. good threat to run. he doesn't have a huge arm, but man did he play well last year, except for, um, 20 interceptions. eagles get another pretty decent white guy to put on the field before michael vick.

round 4, pick 25
new orleans saints
al woods, DT, LSU
another mammoth defensive lineman from LSU. the saints get deeper against the run.

round 4, pick 26
carolina panthers
eric norwood, LB, south carolina
very productive. 26 sacks in college. with this, the panthers might have two of the biggest "steals" in the draft. unfortunately clausen is a punk. no one likes you, jimmy. norwood, however, could be a good starter this year.

round 4, pick 27
philadelphia eagles
clay harbor, TE, missouri state
ahh, the missouri valley conference. academic powerhouse, sure, but did you know they can also churn out a blocking receiver or two? the eagles wrap up a busy fourth round. up til now, they've added a ton of defense, potentially revamping it over the next few years. then they throw in a couple players on offense to keep people happy. this last guy is very strong and very fast.

round 4, pick 28
dallas cowboys
akwasu owusu-ansah, CB, indiana (PA)
boys need secondary help. this guy isn't bad, but he won't help them. if demarcus ware doesn't get to the quarterback, weak-ass secondary might be a problem. nevertheless, i'm super happy i got to type this guy's name out.

round 4, pick 29
seattle seahawks
e.j. wilson, DE, north carolina
decent producion over a full college career. pretty big for an end. the seahawks have had a very good draft, but it shows the difficulty of being a shitty team. lots of good value picks so far, but they really need help up front on defense, and i'm sure they would've liked more than this guy, who'll probably be a back-up until someone gets hurt.

round 4, pick 30
detroit lions
jason fox, OT, miami
stafford needs to not get squashed quite so much. the lions have actually built a pretty good nucleus over the last two drafts, but stafford needs to stay on his feet. maybe the 6' 7'' fatty from miami helps.

round 4, pick 31
peyton-manningopolis colts
jacques mcclendon, OG, tennessee
i don't know shit about this guy. wasn't supposed to be drafted, but you have to figure the colts make another good pick while nobody's looking.

round 4, pick 32
arizona cardinals
o'brien schofield, DE, wisconsin
too small to be a force on the line, but he might become a decent linebacker. the cardinals, of course, had no defense down the stretch last year, and lost their god-fearing quarterback to retirement. cardinals be fucked.

round 4, pick 33
cincinnati bengals
roddrick muckelroy, LB, texas
leading tackler on an almost-national champion defense. sergio kindle was a better prospect, but this guy was a leading contributor on a defense that made a ton of plays.

and that's it for the fourth. was it worth waking up early? no, it wouldn't have been. but was it worth staying up for? again, no, but here i am. pretty relieved chris berman wasn't on TV today, but have you ever tried waking up a tub of butter before noon?

seriously, though, why do they only get people who reside in tanning beds to talk about football on tv? fuckin tv.

UPDATE: the jets trade leon washington to seattle. weak.

distraction

2010-04-23T13:00:00.003-05:00

a few weeks ago, on godspeed you! black emperor's website:
"between now and the live-dates, there'll be rivers of noise and distraction. and the internet is a petty tyrannical monster. please remember that really all that matters is the keep on keeping on. and all that really matters is the shows. and physical engagement in the world."

right on cue, at the forkle:
a river of noise and distraction

total nudge-fest

2010-04-10T22:08:00.005-05:00

everyone needs to understand that behavioral economics is total crap -- a bunch of "writers" who make a lot of waves and a lot of money by finding elaborate and confusing ways to describe perfectly ordinary shit.

take Predictably Irrational, a book that spends about two hundred and fifty pages exploring the idea that people can be tricked into paying more for something than they should. you can find this book and an example of its thesis for $25.95 in the "No Shit" section of border's.

here's a gem: "Relativity is (relatively) easy to understand. But there's one aspect of relativity that consistently trips us up. It's that we not only tend to compare things with one another but also tend to focus on comparing things that are easily comparable -- and avoid comparing things that cannot be compared easily." did you catch that? we tend to compare things that are easily comparable, and we tend to avoid comparing things that are difficult to compare. this trips us up. the quote is from page 8, because tautology is always where these books start. we compare things that are comparable for the same reason we eat "breakfast" in the morning.

from this foundation (that A is A), such a book will reliably proceed to conduct a long series of bizarre experiments (in this book, many of the experiments are conducted on the author's "students"). one gets the feeling that these are all scribbled in one of those jackson pollick looking composition notebooks, frayed at the edges, cocaine residue covering every inch. anyway, check out this doozy (i'm quoting the whole thing, because nobody's reading this shit anyway, and reading the author's own words is the best way to absorb the creepiness):

Imagine that you're taking part in an experiment to test the efficacy of a new painkiller called Veladone-Rx. (The actual experiment involved about 100 adult Bostonians, but for now, we'll let you take their place.)
You arrive at the MIT Media Lab in the morning. Taya Leary, a young woman wearing a crisp business suit (this is in stark contrast to the usual attire of the students and faculty at MIT), greets you warmly, with a hint of a Russian accent. A photo ID identifies Taya as a representative for Vel Pharmaceuticals. She invites you to spend a moment reading a brochure about Veladone-Rx. Glancing around, you note that the room looks like a medical office: stale copies of Time and Newsweek are scattered around; brochures for Veladone Rx are spread out on the table; and nearby is a cup of pens, with the drug's handsome logo. "Veladone is an exciting new medication in the opioid family," you read. "Clinical studies show that over 92 percent of patients receiving Veladone in double-blind controlled studies reported significant pain relief within only 10 minutes, and that pain relief lasted up to eight hours" And how much does it cost? According to the brochure, $2.50 for a single dose.
Once you finish reading the brochure, Taya calls in Rebecca Waber and leaves the room. Rebecca, wearing the white coat of a lab technician, with a stethoscope hanging from her neck, asks you a set of questions about your medical condition and your family's medical history. She listens to your heart and measures your blood pressure. Then she hooks you up to a complicated-looking machine. The electrodes running from the machine, greased with a green electrode gel, encircle your wrists. This is an electrical shock generator, she explains, and it is how we will test your perception and tolerance of pain.
With her hand on the switch, Rebecca sends a series of electrical shocks through the wires and into the electrodes. The initial shocks are merely annoying. Then they become painful, more painful, and finally so painful that your eyes fly open and your heart begins to race. She records your reactions. Now she starts delivering a new set of electrical shocks. This time she administers a set of charges that fluctuate randomly in intensity: some are very painful and some merely irritating. Following each one, you are asked to record, using the computer in front of you, the amount of pain you felt. You use the mouse to click on the line that ranges from "no pain at all" to "the worst pain imaginable" (this is called a "visual pain analog").
When this part of the torture ends, you look up. Rebecca is standing before you with a Veladone capsule in one hand and a cup of water in the other. "It will take about 15 minutes for the drug to reach its maximal effect," she says. You gulp it down, and then move to a chair in the corner, where you look at the old copies of Time and Newsweek until the pill takes effect.
Fifteen minutes later Rebecca, smearing the electrodes with the same green electrode gel, cheerfully asks, "Ready for the next step?" You say nervously, "As ready as I can be." You're hooked up to the machine again, and the shocks begin. As before, you record the intensity of the pain after each shock. But this time it's different. It must be the Veladone-Rx! The pain doesn't feel nearly as bad. You leave with a pretty high opinion of Veladone. In fact, you hope to see it in the neighborhood drugstore before long.
Indeed, that's what most of our participants found. Almost all of them reported less pain when they experienced the electrical shocks under the influence of Veladone. Very interesting -- considering that Veladone was just a capsule of vitamin C.

the experiment is then repeated, only this time the pill's cost is 10 cents per dose; the placebo effect is halved. the conclusion: "When it comes to medicines, then, we learned that you get what you pay for. Price can change the experience."

so the perceived effect of a placebo is anchored to the price of the drug. this is something that drug dealers, for one, have known for decades: your heroin can be 90 percent baking soda, and as long as you charge heroin prices the addicts still want it. people have been pulling this stunt forever: you have something you don't want; you give it a high price and a flashy pitch; people pay you for it.

the intricate torture scenario is not necessary to prove a banal and widely accepted hypothesis. obviously people are not perfectly rational economic actors. just as obviously, this irrationality can be manipulated. it's called being a con-man. throwing in a "complicated-looking machine" that causes great pain, however, is called being an economist, an academic.

there's a lot of this sort of thing going around these days. from the widely-read Freakenomics series (and blog), to malcolm gladwell's annual inside look into how stuff happens, to Nudge by obama cabinet member cass sunstein. Predictably Irrational is an especially odious example of this trend, as it's sole focus throughout seems to be on how to trick people into giving you their money (holding a man upside down and shaking him apparently being out of style).

but there is a little more depth to this "discipline". it isn't all creepy, sadistic marketing experiments. what behavioral economists like to focus on is social policy, how to shift government policy toward more rational aims. sunstein in particular has recently been demonized by some on the right wing, which is returning to its modern roots of scouring the land, trying to ruin the careers of any "marxists" it can find.

that marx is tied to this fad of fusing state-capitalism and modern behavioral psychology is yet another sign of our resounding national ignorance. the mandate of marxism is global economic justice; the mandate of behavioral economics, by contrast, is efficiency (ever an urgent concern for capital). these guys are about as marxist as ayn rand.

of course, a lot of communists have been super-crazy, plus the berlin wall fell. when in rome, and all that.

so how does this affect the commodity nearest to my heart, music? pitchfork is there to fill the gap. after spending a breezy two paragraphs on how just-plain-creepy behavioral economics is, tom ewing hits us with this: "[I]n a low-trust and low-money environment, behavioral economics is politically irresistible: It's simple, it's barely noticeable, and it's cheap. More, it promises a kind of psychological judo. We could batter ourselves senseless and penniless against people's irrationality and selfishness while trying to change their behavior. Or we could use those very traits to 'nudge' them in a desired direction. No wonder business people, as well as politicians, like it so much-- it seems to offer solutions to all kinds of sticky behavioral problems." how quickly this shit always turns into tiny fascism, obsessed with "solving" all sorts of "sticky behavioral problems". (problems such as, "why don't people give me more money?")

seriously, though, the issue ewing addresses is: is there any way to trick people into paying for music even though they don't like to. he cites the example of mflow, an internet community that has come up with an elaborate system to re-attach a cash transmission to the distribution of music. the method employed by mflow reads like something cribbed from one of those cocaine-smudged composition books i talked about before: "You share 'flows'-- songs or albums-- with [your followers], and they do the same for you. When you see one you like, you can buy it, and 20% of what you pay goes to whoever shared it with you in the first place." kind of clever, no? can such an idea succeed? probably, for a little while. but success in this environment is not only hard to come by, it's usually short-lived. remember, the napster kid once made a lot of money selling his shit to BMG, and now it's swallowed up in rhapsody, which no one on earth uses.

of course, the success or failure of any one venture capitalist start-up isn't really important. at all. to anyone, really. what sucks is that all the ideas thrown out in the article are inexorably tied to "social networking". now i'll admit that people are communicating through their electronic dealies in droves these days. but the notion that, like the steam engine and the automobile, social networks will define human interaction for the foreseeable future? well, sure it's plausible. but it's also depressing as hell.

people who consume creativity primarily through their computers are abstracted from the vast amount of work that goes into the creation of every single piece of art. the audience has always been necessarily removed from the labors of creativity to some degree, but the fact that music now comes wirelessly from the air around us has vastly increased that distance. as long as the works lack context (beyond categorization), consumers by and large will not want to pay for them. mixing in the trivialities of social networking, replete with "friends", "badges", and "groups", doesn't accomplish much besides making the whole thing seem even more repulsive.

remarkably, tom ewing ends up agreeing. "Real life games are attractive to marketers because they impose objectives onto behavior, which makes it easier to change and to predict. But like most social media, they also bring people's networks out into the open and turn them into something you can make money off when you can't make it out out of fans themselves so easily. In this case, I can't help feeling that the social relations we form around music and fandom are better off uncommoditized." so that's his argument against. do you notice something missing here? i sure do. where the hell are the musicians?!

and, to go back to the fake opioid experiment from before, this is the problem with behavioral economics: it encourages you to see things from the perspective of capital ("marketers") and of consumers ("fans themselves"), while completely ignoring the needs of labor. in each of the solutions that tom ewing presents (or those offered up by almost anyone else when they address this issue), the role of the musician is similar to the role of the test subjects in the Veladone-Rx experiment: he goes through excruciating pain repeatedly, but the last time he's tricked into thinking it doesn't hurt.

music is something people make with their hands and listen to with their ears. (we began with tautology and we'll end there, damnit!) the best way to move forward is to throw out the complicated-looking machines and be done with the byzantine petty fascism of behavioral economics.

phutball sunday: draft edition

2010-04-04T18:10:00.002-05:00

i don't wanna write about music.

sam bradford is ridiculously good. his accuracy is insane. unfortunately, early last season the mormon army of BYU smashed his part-native american shoulder. about a month and a half later, he came back and promptly fell on the same shoulder, and missed the rest of the season. if he goes to a team with a shit offensive line like the rams, he might not last. if he does, he's golden. but the hit that caused that second injury really wasn't much of a hit.

jimmy claussen -- i guess he's okay. but just look at what he did to the irish: they lost to crap teams like syracuse and navy all the time, and the only thing everyone ever talked about was how good claussen was. charlie weiss turned that whole team into an extended pro day for his adopted, substantially less chubby son, and claussen ate it up. what a douche. brady quin, anyone?

dez bryant is an absurdly talented player who's receiving a crash course in The Man and How To Get Fucked by Him. last year the NCAA suspended him for eating dinner at deion sanders' house without a permission slip. they suspended him FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON! and now if anyone talks about him, it's only to mention his "off-the-field issues" and "character problems". dez bryant is from poor-as-fuck lufkin, texas; 18.8% of lufkiners live below the poverty line, including 26.4% of those under 18. apparently, in his adolescence, no one took time out from grooming him for the NFL to tell him that you can't just say yes when primetime calls and invites you to dinner (who was most likely telling him: "you're six months away from becoming the richest motherfucker to ever come out of lufkin. don't fuck it up."). Now he might drop out of the top ten picks, and maybe even out of the top twenty, costing him tens of millions of dollars. what a crock. for a good time, watch this sweet youtube of him demolishing his competition in high school. whoever ends up "taking a chance" on this "character-issue" laden superman will be very lucky.

sean witherspoon, the linebacker from missouri is very good. also dexter mccluster, who seems to be destined from the third round in spite of stuff like this. toby gerhardt is truly the great white hope (let's go, white hope). terrence cody, nose tackle from alabama, he weighs 350 pounds; fuckin awesome. tim tebow will be great because jesus, and jordan shipley is the next wes welker. i'm out.

one word that music critics use way too much

2010-03-24T13:00:00.002-05:00

ethereal.

the word isn't being used wrong; on the contrary, it's usually all too appropriate: delicate, airy, pertaining to the upper regions of space...

Gawker.com Provides the Most Ill-Informed Article Concerning Capitalism and Rap EVER

2010-03-16T13:50:00.004-05:00

Why Hamilton Nolan, why? You write for Gawker, which is a liberal semi-trashy gossip/NYC update website. Why would you out of the blue write an article telling people how to feel about Jay Z? Why is it important that people not look up to Jay Z?

"Yes, Jay-Z is a cool black guy who has nice flows and a famous, pretty wife and knows CEOs and other fun things, and white internet people have embraced him orgasmically just like they bizarrely embraced janky coke rap a couple years ago. But Jay-Z represents one thing: money. And you, cool kids, always aspire to be about more than that. Let's have good idols instead of empty ones that are all shiny."

Hmmm...let's talk about hip hop and money, shall we? What was one of the first hits of the mid-1980's? Erik B. and Rakim's "Paid in Full." And album cover that features the artists holding money with one hundred dollar bills as the backdrop. Run D.M.C. created a fantastic track entitled "My Adidas." That track helped sell a LOT of shoes, even to this day.

Now let's flash forward to the early nineties. The Wu Tang Clan help sell Tommy Hilfiger clothing, Gucci products and write a track entitled "C.R.E.a.M." What is the hook to that track?

"Cash Rules Everything Around Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all"

Any track from 2pac or Biggie. Nas raps, "I'm out for Dead Presidents to represent me," on his track "Dead Presidents."

Oh, what's that Hamilton Nolan? You have thoughts concerning Nas as well?

"GOD DAMN KIDS TODAY DON'T EVEN APPRECIATE Illmatic. Sorry. Had to get that off my chest."

Nas is good but Jay Z is bad. And the basis is that Nas doesn't rap about money or capitalism? Nas, who writes a track called "Money is my Bitch" is somehow above Jigga because he's above capitalism? Consider this point rendered wholly moot.

And that's the problem. The basis of the entire article relies on the flawed argument that because Jay Z raps about money, he should not be treated as talented artist.

Hamilton Nolan, you have revealed yourself as not fit to write about hip hop. At all. The end. But you went to a Dead Prez concert and talked to them backstage?

"But I just got back from the Harvest of Hope Festival, a huge three-day music festival in Florida, where I got the chance to interview Dead Prez, the single most non-hypocritical rap group in America, the closest thing to a modern-day Public Enemy."

They told you that Jay Z represents all that is wrong in the business and that is that? You see, Hamilton, you've played right into their hands. You think they're not businessmen too? AND HOW CAN YOU CALL THEM THE MOST NON-HYPOCRITICAL RAP GROUP?!? On what basis are you judging hip hop artists? What makes a group more non-hypocritical than the next? You don't know, BECAUSE YOU'RE COMPLETELY BIASED.

Fact: Dead Prez rely on capitalism as much as the next group. Do you know who the biggest fans of Dead Prez are? WHITE PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE COOL! These white people spend their discretionary income on Dead Prez records. Oh, you have something to say to cool white people too?

"So, yea. Hey cool kids, you can't idolize Jay-Z and Dead Prez at the same time."

Now I assume this is a joke at this point. Mr. Nolan has written an article meant to stir up as many page hits and nasty feedback as possible. Mission accomplished. However, I don't think this opinion piece belongs anywhere on Gawker. Just because you go see your favorite hip hop group and interview them does not make you a cultural critic of hip hop.

Jay Z is not my favorite rapper. Not by a long shot. I find it necessary to defend him from a moronic writer who sees the fault of an entire genre of music in only one artist. Hamilton Nolan, please go back to writing about anything other than music. Thanks.

i know why the nicolas cage bird sings

2010-03-05T09:37:00.005-06:00

it's been almost thirty years since "fast times at ridgemont high", but major hollywood's love affair with nicolas cage is showing no signs of slowing down. they took out my wisdom teeth yesterday morning and i decided to pass the night watching, among other things, last year's flop "knowing" (which is what you get when no one is willing to call out m. night shyamalan). pseudo-religious, pseudo-sci-fi apocalypse crap. i won't get into specifics aside from saying that vicodin works.

anyway, i got to thinking, "man that nick cage fellow has made some odd career choices recently." let's have a look at the last few years. a pretty bad remake of "bad lieutenant", the above mentioned "knowing", a really horrible remake of "bangkok dangerous", "national treasure 2: national treasurer", "next", and "ghost rider". i've omitted his voice acting in "g-force" and "astro boy" along with his cameo in "grindhouse". every movie i listed above is really really really shitty.

but you know what's good about starring in crappy big-budget movies that no one with a drop of reputation would go anywhere near? they'll put your name in super big letters on the poster, every single time. they'll probably even put your face on the DVD jacket, too.

so let's all raise a glass to oscar winner nicolas cage. his golden days have surely passed (the rock, con air, and face/off were released in succession), but he's still out there getting paid millions of dollars to fight the good fight. hey, someone has to star in "ghost rider 2".

back to the future

2010-03-05T08:53:00.002-06:00

here's a little peek at the freakish dystopia that exists in tom ewing's head (he's one of my favorite fork-compensated retards). what tom is imagining is the year 2021, when CD-Rs make a comeback. it's historical fiction that takes place in the future, which is terra firma for The Onion, but quite the adventure for the fork.

i've tried several times now to write something in depth about how stupid this is, but it kind of felt like writing an extensive essay on the blueness of the sky. i'll try to boil my reaction down to the essentials.

nevermind that CD's represent the motherfucking inception of digital culture. nevermind that every major music-seller has already vanished (in ewing's imagination, "Britain's high street stores stopped stocking CDs five years ago"). and nevermind that a guy who writes many thousands of words elaborating on a made-up future for hipsters has clearly run out of shit to say.

instead, ignore the glaring idiocy, and embrace this style as the logical next step for pitchfork writers: having exhausted the past, they can now go on to writing about tomorrow's nostalgia today.

one short post-script: if hipsters really wanted to rebel against digital culture, they'd stop being dilettante collectors, and they'd start actually supporting musicians by paying to watch them perform.

good reviews/bad reviews

2010-02-20T10:41:00.003-06:00

good review

derisive review

both reviews mention that the new effort from LA hipsters and professional bandwagon riders Local Natives bears a striking resemblance to recent efforts from Fleet Foxes. the pitchfork review even mentions several other recent indie stalwarts that Local Natives sound exactly like ("sort of a West Coast Grizzly Bear"). faint praise? soft bigotry of low expectations?

pitchfork says something else curious about this band, which is especially curious if you've clicked through the second link. "Local Natives have already gained a foothold in parts of Europe-- their album has received attention in the UK." would you care to know what the guardian UK has to say about this band?

"[T]he unsuspecting could be forgiven for thinking they are hearing demos for the Foxes' second record. As such, it's almost impossible to listen to without making comparisons, and Local Natives are not the beneficiaries of the process. It's like listening to the Vibrators after the Clash: decent enough on its own terms, but lesser and later – pop's cardinal sin." so, yeah, they're big in europe.

how does pitchfork address the issue of this band being grossly unoriginal and hacktacular? "In short, the Silver Lake quintet have followed indie rock's major players in recent years-- they knew how to dress for success in 2010. Great for them-- now, what's in it for you? Plenty as it turns out."

wow! so they sound exactly like a band that hit it big about one year ago. to the british writer, this is "pop's cardinal sin" to the american writer, "great for them!"

at the end of the final paragraph of p-fork's thumb on the scale: "True, we tend to bow at novelty and innovation, but Gorilla Manor proves to be a refreshing reminder of the pleasures of synthesis."

jesus fucking christ!

an open letter to the sound technicians of brooklyn

2010-02-11T10:59:00.004-06:00

dear technicians,

i know life isn't working out the way you had planned. you moved to brooklyn with dreams of being a more "plugged in" basquiat, or the next david sedaris, or maybe your big brother told you that warriors was a cool movie while you were young and the impression just stuck. your dreams have not come true yet; instead, some bartender (sympathetic from having once suffered through the same delusions) gave you a regular paying gig doing sound.

in brooklyn, no one complains if something is inaudible. no one complains if there are ungodly levels of reverb. your only responsibility is to avoid feedback.

it may not be something you write about on facebook, it probably wouldn't make for a thrilling reality show, and your big brother still thinks you're a nerd.

but guess what? it's your fucking job. it pays for your pbr's, without which you would be generally less surly which would in turn force you to adjust your entire persona. your arrogant grumpiness is a lifestyle which you could not afford without this gig.

when the band ten feet in front of your face starts feeding back wildly: 1) it's because you fucked up; 2) you make more money than the performers on any given night, so; 3) pull your face away from the fucking iphone and do your fucking job.

phinal phootball phriday

2010-02-05T15:38:00.000-06:00

colts

racist/not racist little wayne review

2010-02-04T13:10:00.006-06:00

from today's review of "rebirth" which i have yet to hear:
"Considering Wayne is a man whose artistic aims apparently involve 1) Collecting oil-tycoon cash, 2) Having sex with several women at once, and 3) Concocting the world's finest excrement-related rhymes, Rebirth is most definitely a flop, terribly unsexy, and contains surprisingly few shit jokes. Wayne is playing against type here. "When I play sick, I'm Jordan with the flu," he boasts on the album, referring to Jordan's classic game against the Jazz. And in general, that's true; but here Wayne is like Mike with pneumonia and a broken leg... playing baseball."

ryan dombal (seriously, that's his fucking name) is trying to be endearing and funny here, but what he accomplishes is shitting all over one of the most prolific musicians of our moment, exhibiting a totally gay sense of humor along the way. your jordan joke vs. wayne's jordan joke: guess who sells millions of albums and guess who writes about them on a blog!

further, the three comedic "artistic aims" mentioned are, in fact, time-tested ways to belittle black men: obsessed with money, oversexed, and vulgar.

at the very start of the review: "'Everybody say they just do it, well, I just don't,' claims Lil Wayne on Rebirth, his unlikely, unqualified, and quite unbelievable rock album." i stared at that word "unqualified" for quite some time. can it be true that rock has reached this point, where there are qualifications one must acquire before making it? i suppose that's what makes wavvves more qualified to release a rock album than a guy who's been putting out music for almost a decade.

a little later: "In the mid 1980s, Run-D.M.C. used distorted guitars and stadium-rock drums to help break hip-hop into the mainstream. Now, one of the world's biggest rappers is using the same tools to make a niche record only a diehard could truly love. That flip says as much about hip-hop's current state of evolution (shaky) as it does about Lil Wayne's current commercial predicament. [T]he idea that he'll never top the million-in-a-week phenomenon that was Tha Carter III is naturally weighing on Wayne. He may never have a single as big as 'Lollipop' or reach the level of universal relevancy to warrant another prime time interview with Katie Couric. He seems to realize this on Rebirth." oh dear. you know you've made it when katie couric is talkin to you on the TV! wondering how he's going to top that masterpiece is surely a "commercial predicament" that keeps wayne up nights.

more importantly, though, "hip-hop's current state of evolution" is "shaky". if anyone wants to defend the phrase "shaky state of evolution" from accusations of utter meaninglessness, now's your chance.

i think what mr. dombal is trying to say is that he thinks hip-hop is in trouble. of course he doesn't bother presenting any external evidence for this; the remark is parenthetical, almost as if he's reminding us of a known fact.

throughout the review, there's a distinct tone of, "what the fuck is this nigger thinking?" the music "would serve as an incredible exaggerated parody of Linkin Park angst if the song wasn't dead serious." according to this douchebag, "According to Wayne, rock music combines the coked-out idiocy of Sunset Strip hair metal with the processed rage of Bizkit-ed headbanging. Understandably, the combination can be abhorrent." in other words, wayne, you should have checked with this mostly-literate pitchfork minion before deciding on your influences; he would have steered you in a better direction.

from tha carter III's "don't get it":
"Um, mr sharpton, and anyone like you
You don't know me so if your not gonna try to
Then what you say or think about me or what I do
Is totally casper the friendly ghost to me
And it doesnt make you a good person to criticize before you improvise
Doesnt necessarily make you a bad person either but
The characteristics fall heavenly into bad's way
But since I am human, I am good and bad as well
But I try my hardest to stay good
And some of the things I do and say may be bad or just not too good
But I do try"

stop - grammy time

2010-02-02T12:38:00.009-06:00

i think we all knew beyonce was destined for greatness the first time she asked us "charlie, how your angels get down like that?"

in other news, lady gaga has taken a job as the creative director for polaroid, a company which has no factories left in the united states. this is actually true.

apparently this year's grammys had 25.8 million viewers, a 35% increase over last year, and the highest ratings since 2004. the new york times says of the ratings boost that it "affirms the appeal of pop glitz at a time of plummeting record sales," so that's okay then. (i remember popping a glitz once and it actually sounded kind of like "pokerface".)

related joke: someone should do a song about blowjobs, under the alias "lady gag", called "poke her face".

whew all over the place today, time to break out the topper, a dancing butt.

and that's what i was watching instead of the grammys.

(butt dance, via Spinster aunt

)

Scooped by Salon.com

2010-02-01T09:55:00.003-06:00

You know that really annoying article I wrote about Paul Shirley that cherry-picked his quasi-racist quotes about MLK day and his hatred/love of rap?

Well, three days later Salon.com skewered the same article.

I've been pwnd and it hurts. Like utter sadness. Like the most over-wrought and DRAMAtic break-up record ever.

in memoriam

2010-01-31T19:26:00.001-06:00

Paul Shirley: Racist/Not-Racist Music Reviewer

2010-01-26T19:28:00.007-06:00

Paul Shirley is not a smart person. He's an ex-basketball player who turned diary-writing into a post-sport career. Recently he wrote one of the more embarrassing, history-ignoring, borderline racist pieces about Haiti yet committed to paper.

In it, he essentially blames Haiti's problem on its general populace. Here is his Twitter feed. Here is the piece. He also writes for ESPN. Flame away, dear reader(s). He is to be publicly disemboweled.

He also writes MUSIC REVIEWS(!?!?) for ESPN. And they are...well, amazingly terrible. I'm not sure how I missed them. I will take the next couple weeks having fun with his shittiness. Here is his piece on Gucci Mane (who Paul Shirley detests) and Kid Cudi (Shirley loves). You can imagine just how wonderfully curmudgeonly this is going to get. I will not keep this brief. This will be long and drawn out.

If nothing else, I've learned this about the world of music: Like small business owners and Hollywood agents, bands don't work during the holidays. As such, by the time my family had finished tiding its collective yule, my cache of music was as depleted as a UN rice truck after six hours in a Sudanese refugee camp.

Hmm...in light of the recent statements, I'd love to give him a free pass on the UN rice truck...nope. He wrote this two weeks ago. And now the Haiti piece. I'm no in no way P.C., but perhaps Mr. Shirley needs some sensitivity training?

Instead of forcing my way into a discussion of bands I haven't yet fully digested (hello, Neon Indian), I took a different tack. On various recommendations, I procured some of what the kids are calling "rap music," turned up my receiver, and sat back in an effort to appreciate the latest efforts from Kid Cudi and Gucci Mane.

My nuanced, thoughtful and stately analysis of the latter:

As an album, Gucci Mane's "The State vs. Radric Davis" is trash.

If it meant that Gucci Mane weren't allowed to release music ever again, I would go as far as allowing the older brother I never had to administer to my person 12 Indian Rope Burns, 17 Dutch Rubs, and maybe, just maybe, an Atomic Wedgie.

Hey, so you don't like the prevalent sound of mainstream hip-hop? Is that what you're trying to say? I can't tell, only because it was lost in your horrible attempt at humor. Perhaps try another refugee joke. It worked so well for you last time.

My dislike for the "The State" can be traced to the album's predictability. Mane employs every trick that has made me come to hate rap music over the past 20 years.

Twenty years? When did rap music germinate? 1979? Somewhere around there? THIRTY YEARS. THIRTY YEARS of rap music. Also, YOU HATE RAP MUSIC? Shouldn't the article end here? How could you enjoy the rap music of Kid Cudi if you hate rap music?

Misogyny? Check.

"I pimped that white girl like a m------------ hooker."

(As a bonus, it appears that there might have been some latent racism available as well.)

Clumsy descriptions of sexual methods and locations? Check.

"I'll take you to Six Flags and [edited] you on a roller coaster."

False bravado? Done. Over and over and over again.

(See every song.)

Ubiquitous references to marijuana? Obviously.

(There's even a song called "Kush Is My Cologne.")

References to self in the third person? Available.

(Is every other line sufficient?)

Dumb skits, interludes and meaningless conversations meant to show how "street" everyone is, even though the album was released by a major label (Warner Bros.)? Of course.

(There are three.)

Major label albums released on major labels that aren't somehow street: Any Wu Tang joint. Dr. Dre. Nas. Snoop. The Clipse. Jay Z. Biggie. Indie/Major label cred is dead in this modern era, Shirley. That isn't your problem. Your problem is that kids like Soulja Boy, who grew up in a nice neighborhoods with well-to-do parents who buy them music studios, become financial successes bragging about street cred when they seemingly have zero.

Also, YOU THINK THREE SKITS ARE A LOT FOR A RAP ALBUM?!? How about De La Soul's classic "3 Feet High and Rising?" That album is half fucking skits. Skits have been a part of rap music for decades. But you already stated you hate rap, so you thusly hate skits. It's your opinion. That's fine.

"The State vs. Radric Davis" sounds like an album made by a 13-year-old who's been addled by daily hits from a pipe since he was 2. And I'm not referring to smoking -- whether of tobacco or of other substances. I mean that it sounds like someone has been hitting the person who made this album with a pipe for 11 years.

That said, I could imagine listening to a song or two en route to a bar. Once every six months or so.

But high art it is not.

It's trash, it's garbage...but hey, I'll listen to it on the way to a bar. You see what you did there Paul Shirley? You revealed the essence of Gucci Mane's music; it is party music, it drowns in its own irreverence. It is NOT HIGH ART. Gucci knows this, and most people who have an iota of intelligence recognize this very fact. You should take that "hit in the head with a pipe" joke and apply it to yourself. Many times.

Now that I've gotten all that vitriol out of my system, I can move on to the good news:

Kid Cudi's "Man on the Moon: The End of Day" is one of the best albums, of any genre, I've heard in months.

I don't want to dwell on the negative, because my objective as a music writer is to bring to light music that I think people will enjoy, not to point out the flaws in other pieces. But because Gucci Mane is so bad, the contrast between him and Kid Cudi becomes all the more evident. The lesson learned from Kid Cudi's debut is that rap music doesn't have to be childish, ignorant and potentially harmful to the health of young brains. Assuming, of course, that Kid Cudi is a rapper, which is a question to which I'd like to return in a few paragraphs.

But first, let us bathe in the sweet waters of positivity.

On "Man on the Moon," Kid Cudi (real name Scott Mescudi) presents the narrative arc of a man trying to understand himself -- his purpose, his past, and who, exactly, he is. Mescudi's is a lofty goal but, because he approaches the project with a level of humanity not often found on records of any sort -- let alone on hip-hop records -- he succeeds.

Kid Cudi isn't just a rapper, he's a singer-songwriter.

One of my problems with most rap/hip-hop albums is their inability to hold my attention for their breadth. (Breadths?) The aforementioned skits, interludes and crappy guest stars take me out of the, well, flow, and I never recover.

My attention span, or lack thereof, is not a problem on "Man on the Moon," even though the album is 15 songs long. There is no filler. Even the tracks that could be interpreted to be interludes, portrayed as they are as "Nightmares" in the protagonist's journey, work. In fact, they're some of the best songs on the record.

THE 'NIGHTMARES' ARE SKITS. THEY ARE SKITS AND YOU DETEST SKITS. Just state an opinion and stick to it. Your head. A pipe. Please hit.

All this effusion was bubbling to my brain's surface even before Mescudi dropped a guest-star bomb on me. I was listening along, thinking, I'm so happy that I like this because if I bashed two rap artists in the same column, everyone would call me a racist for sure … Then I heard the unmistakable strains of RATATAT.

So if you don't like rap music...you're racist? Conclusions, you have been jumped to. This is terrible. No wonder he wrote that piece on Haiti. The old "I'm just a poor white boy stuck in a P.C. world" shtick. You aren't. Grow up and think like an adult. Just because I hate modern jazz music doesn't make me a bigot. It just means that I have an opinion. The end.

Kid Cudi works with RATATAT!

You see, I really like RATATAT. As if the exclamation point didn't make that clear. And if Kid Cudi has the taste and intelligence to secure the participation of RATATAT on his album, I like him even more.

This is about to get really, really awful. As bad as listening to him gush about RATATAT? Worse.

When I finished listening to "Man on the Moon" for the fourth time, I was jubilant. I had, once again, found rap music that I liked.

But something was eating at the edge of my consciousness. That something was this:

I'm not entirely sure Kid Cudi purveys rap music. I know he's black (ish?) and that his music is relatively monotonal. But as I listened to "Man On the Moon," over and over, I couldn't help but be struck with how much Mescudi sounds like …

A singer-songwriter.

First of all..."black (ish?)"...I literally want to punch Paul Shirley in the face. This is not honesty, nor is it contrarian. He is a lazy writer, hoping to catch your attention through the use of manipulatively rabble-rousing rhetoric. I'VE GOTTAN OPINION BRO, IT'S SO TWISTED, CZECH IT OUT. Secondly, his music is monotonal therefore it's rap music? FTW? Have you heard J Dilla? Deltron? El-P? Pete Rock? Large Professor? Prince Paul? The list goes on and on. I know this is an opinion piece, but it stinks up to the rafters. If I'm interested in something, I do a little...RESEARCH. And then I can back up my interest with facts, which in turn creates my opinion.

Monotonal is not a word. Spell check should tell you that. Monaural? Is that what you meant? Because Monotonal means there is only one tone, and that would mean rap music is the sound of one note. You are not intelligent.

I know what you're thinking, depending on who you are. If you were Kid Cudi, you'd say, "Oh brother, just when I was starting to get some credibility, some white dude calls me a singer-songwriter."

If you're a militant hip-hop fan who happens to love Kid Cudi, you're thinking, "Shirley, you're just trying to fit Kid Cudi into your tastes, instead of adapting your tastes to embrace music that you thought didn't exist."

To Mr. Mescudi, I would say … Don't worry about my judgment; no one actually reads these columns. They're a write-off for ESPN.

To Mr. Militant, I would say … No, I'm really not. I have no problem writing that I like rap music. I haven't done so very often of late because there hasn't been any worth writing about since 1993.

I kid. I had to write that just to see how many people would stop reading immediately after the "1993" to fire off an angry e-mail that contained epithets and suggestions that I listen to Common, Saul Williams and Atmosphere before I start shooting off at the keyboard.

Very quickly: More fun contrarianism, he says he like rap music when he earlier said he did not like rap music, and the three rappers he comes up with are too hip to be square Common, Saul Williams and Atmosphere? Amazing.

My toe-dip into the tepid waters of classification is not meant to imply that Kid Cudi is a singer-songwriter in the vein of Jack Johnson. But plotted on a spectrum that runs from Pete Yorn to Mystikal, he's probably closer to Yorn than most would realize.

In case you don't believe me, check out "Sky Might Fall" here.

As I listened to "Man on the Moon," I couldn't help but compare Cudi to my favorite rapwriter/songrapper: Jamie T. Singsong delivery. Intelligent lyrics. Occasional admissions of weakness. The only difference being that Cudi is decidedly not from England.

In the end, I suppose, it doesn't matter …

Oh no. Here it comes: the part where I wrap things up and say that it doesn't matter how we classify Kid Cudi because good music is good music … [sound of me snoring as my head hits the fancy backlit keys on my laptop]

As I've finished this column, it has occurred to me that this will be posted the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I hate Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I think it's a divisive holiday. Instead of celebrating an intelligent man who happened to be black, there are those (and they are many) who would have us celebrate MLK because he's a black man who happened to be intelligent.

I'm no great spokesman for race relations; many of the black men around whom I've spent time shared a seething dislike for me that had me checking my pockets to make sure I hadn't stolen something from them. As a result, I have my own built-in prejudices and idiosyncrasies.

Yes Paul Shirley, I'm sure this is true. You are victim of reverse racism. Incredible. This piece has gone from asinine to Dada in less than a page of awkwardly structured prose.

I have learned this, however: The more time we spend trying to divide people up, the less progress is made.

So when I write that Kid Cudi isn't purely a rapper, don't think it's because I'm trying to co-opt him into a white world. Instead, listen to his album. Pay attention to the journey he takes the listener on: through his protagonist's confusion, despair, hope and insecurity; and finally, on the last song on the album, to an appropriately tenuous sense of 21st century self-actualization. That the song in question is probably about marijuana is not important, at least to me. What's important is that the album succeeds mightily, where others might have failed.

Hey, would you fancy that. He actually talks a little about the music. Astonishing.

Give it a listen. Whether you're young, old, black, white, a fan of country or a fan of post-electronica jungle house dubstep, I think you'll find a way to relate to Kid Cudi. And a way for him to relate to you.

Then, when you're done, throw away all your Gucci Mane CDs. Because those shouldn't relate to anyone, white or black.

Do you know what's better than anything? Acting like a closet-racist throughout an article and then attempting a colon-cleanse of sorts by using the final sentence as a "get out of jail free card."

In light of your recent incredibly narrow-minded statements, I'm afraid I can't let you out of jail, Mr. Shirley. You see, you've written a wealth of "music reviews" for ESPN that are all prime Writemare material. Unlike Gucci Mane, we will welcome you with open arms.

briefly

2010-01-25T11:51:00.004-06:00

reviews for instrumental albums are short. not convinced? look.

it's a new album by rachel grimes, previously of the band rachel's. the album gets a 7.1, and three paragraphs.

jump to the end: "[The songs] have the feel of creativity accessed while in between encounters with other people. That time between is something we all need now and then, and this record resonates primarily because of how well it embodies the nourishment of aloneness."

and an editor saw this and said, "ah, fuck it. it's just the internet."

rachel's were a really good band. i can't speak to this new thing because i spend all my money on weed and diner food, leaving me without the means to buy shit at any of the no record stores left in new york.

go listen to rachel's. "systems/layers"

phootball phriday: i'm so right all the time edition

2010-01-22T14:53:00.003-06:00

unless i decide to do a pro bowl edition (and if you're interested in placing a bet on the pro bowl, you are a degenerate gambler and you should probably call your parents), there are only two more opportunities to drop knowledge before we enter the long, knick-filled off-season. well, we should all expect tiny nate robinson to catch fire, and the knicks to retake their rightful throne as the beast of the east. but we'll leave that to another day.

for the moment, what the nfl calls championship weekend is coming up. now i've been on something of a roll in the playoffs (6-2), so part of me wants to quit while i'm ahead, and try doing the whole pregame show thing, where i tell you what each team needs to do to win and then watch the money roll in.

well there's no money. so fuck it.

turns out god doesn't want kurt warner to win a second super bowl. i'll admit that this surprised me. He kept boldin out of the game, He made every break go the saints' way, and He even knocked warner on his ass, almost as if to say "my son, it is time to retire." new orleans' has a terrific offense, perhaps the most explosive in the league (watch the flea-flicker from last sunday, if you doubt), but expect jared allen to foil that plan. however, if the saints are able to run between the tackles, and reggie bush seemed pretty unstoppable last week, they will neutralize the viking pass rush, and take advantage of a so-so secondary. as for the mall of america vikings, the cowboys were too soft last week. at least one of favre's touchdowns would have been intercepted by a half-decent corner, and the blowout score is misleading, as minnesota piled it on late. it's been a while since the vikings have played a team that can control the ball, even score touchdowns every now and then. a strong running game and a few more monster plays from bush, and favre will retire yet again, only to be resurrected next year in an effort to save the oakland raiders, which will fall short, yet again.

as for my dearly beloved jets, i watched every snap this season, and one of the joys has been that nobody takes them seriously. you get to feel like you're anti-establishment, but you don't have to stop watching Marines-sponsored pro sports. they may have the best defense in the league, but nobody's afraid of them. check with overpaid pansies carson palmer and phillip rivers to see how underestimating this defense works out. but here's the problem: manning. the chargers, the cardinals, the eagles... this has not been a great post-season for high-flying offenses. they don't seem capable of winning a dog fight. once the going gets tough, they get desperate and soft and start throwing dumb passes (which was kind of their game plan anyway). thing is, the colts are not a high-flying offense; they are an efficient offense. slowly but surely, small chunk by small chunk, they move the ball down the field until they're in the endzone. the jets are best at preying on video-game-type offenses, and may have trouble against a guy who knows that a six yard completion is actually good. additionally, manning gets the ball out of his hands before pressure gets to him, every time (he was sacked only ten times this year, and the texans had four of those all to themselves). this is also a problem for the jets, as manning comfortable in the pocket will be able to cut up any defense he sees.
further, manning runs the best two-minute offense maybe of all time, and the jets have an annoying habit of giving up game-winning touchdown drives in the last two minutes (atlanta, jacksonville, miami, just to name a few). this is the greatest mismatch in the game, colts offense against jets defense down the stretch. if the jets play their game successfully, it will come down to the final possession for indy. but personally, i'm anticipating a crushing last-second loss, followed by a colts-saints super bowl.

win or loose, though, the jets have made this blog exponentially more fun to write this year. for that i am very grateful. one more post about how much "real estate" sucks, and people would start to think i was obsessed.

mr. godfrey ho

2010-01-18T13:05:00.003-06:00

more movie talk. j-temp previously listed some movie-watcher types, but i wanted to add the titular director to the conversation, godfrey ho of hong kong, maker of such beautiful classics as "robo vampire"; "ninja: extreme weapons" and "robo-kickboxer -- power of justice".

real fast, because i'm running out of internet: ho's genius was that he would shoot one very short movie (usually with british or american actors, for international distribution), and then buy the rights to an unfinished or otherwise unavailable asian film, and fuse the two together with editing and a dubbed script. the movies didn't make too much sense, and he had no problem frankenstein-ing two films from completely different countries, but as a result of this process, at his peak ho was capable of releasing over a dozen movies EACH YEAR!

one absolute classic: "ninja: the protector". it's the story of three cops trying to break one of hong kong's notorious money-counterfeiting/ninja clubs. it's also the story of a young man, a would-be model, who gets seduced by the bright lights and small titties of hong kong's fashion scene. he gets laid on the beach a lot, and the head cop is also a ninja who cracks the case and beats all the other ninjas.

the film was released in 1986. here's what else godfrey ho released that year:
Bionic Ninja
Ninja Ultimate Challenge
Clash of the Ninjas
Diamond Ninja Force
Golden Ninja Warrior
Ninja Destroyer
Ninja Dragon
Ninja Fantasy
Ninja Hunt
Shaddow Killers Tiger Force
The Ninja Squad
The Ultimate Ninja
Tough Ninja the Shadow Warrior

that's more than one full length movie every month. to godfrey ho, king of quantity not quality!

phootball phriday: smoke while you read it

2010-01-15T15:35:00.002-06:00

eight teams remain. only one team's players will have a super bowl XLIV ring to pawn in ten years. here we go.

the only pick i missed last week was the cowboys. i picked against them because i don't like the cowboys. i had to watch george w fucking bush celebrating in the owner's box of the new cowboys tv and stadium, fast becoming a mecca of sorts for middle america. how can you root for this team? in other news, people don't seem to think the vikings are all that strong right now, but in the second half of week 16 against the bears and then all day long against the giants, favre and company seemed unstoppable. and while the dallas defense is getting a lot of love for stymieing the eagles two weeks in a row, the vikings have too many offensive weapons, along with a serious edge in the return game. plus, i hear mall of america field is a really tough place to play. vikings by ten.

as for what i got right, kurt warner is god's quarterback. a lot of talk has been made about how defense ended the game last week. this is typical liberal media. god is love! warner needed to be completely focused, off the field, speaking directly to jesus with his mind. that's why the cardinals won. because jesus. will the lord spare new orleans? no chance. cards win another high-scoring game, but comfortably this time.

the ravens at the colts. baltimore lost a squeaker to the colts earlier in the season. since then, their running game/offensive line have gotten much better, and the coaches have learned to stop putting the game on a guy called flacco. unfortunately for devoted ravens fans everywhere, no one has proven that they can beat peyton manning this year. and don't be distracted by baltimore's shut-down of the welkerless patriots, the ravens defense has lost a step or two. that said, if the ravens win, then they might have to turn on the lights at the meadowlands one more time! back from the dead, now and forever, new jersey's finest football arena!!!! seriously, colts by a bit. manning to the afc championship.

where he will have his candy ass ripped apart by the new york jets. now i know the chargers have won some games. but this is exactly the sort of team that the jets are built to beat. they're soft against the run, they're absurdly pass-heavy, and they tend to need a lot of big plays to win a lot of squeakers. the jets will pound the rock, knock rivers on his ass, and maybe give up a couple big gains on screen passes, and a dig or two up the field to antonio gates. last i checked, san diego was a ten point favorite. crazy-talk. the jets will win handily. that is, of course, unless sachez throws eighteen interceptions.

and finally, on a personal note, allow me to say that gilbert arenas should not go to prison. as a culture, we get off on lynching random famous people, frequently black men, for just about anything. yeah, so he waved a gun around a locker room. so the fuck what? were you there? did you have to duck or something?

calmer than you are.

Booooooooooooiiiiinnngggggggggg

2010-01-15T11:48:00.002-06:00

This Week in Creating the Indie Canon

2010-01-14T13:20:00.004-06:00

Another day of music to review at Pitchfork and another excuse to review another Animal Collective record. It's a reissue of Campfire Songs, one of their records I enjoy. The review is fill-in-the-blanks typical, references to swirling music, recording on a porch, mushroom trips and the inevitable conversation of how technology invades the band's "naturist" recordings.

Fine. It's just that once in a while I'd appreciate them talking about any other band. We get it. Animal Collective are the kings of Indie. They rooooool. Grizzly Bear is great. So are the Dirty Projectors. The hierarchy is established. Now is the time to talk up anyone else. ANYONE. Thanks.

Other news:

I, like most humans with a semblance of humor, enjoy Conan O'Brien. But guess what? Come February he won't have a show. Count it. I hope this is true, because Conan should be writing and producing amazing comedy outside the forum of a late night show. If he did an animated show, could you imagine the comedy-folk he could bring with him? Conan, force them to fire you, collect the severance and create your dream show. I implore you.

Multiple Personalities: Avatar Apologist

2010-01-14T12:21:00.004-06:00

Haven't seen Avatar yet, will when sufficiently inebriated. And yes, I know how hackneyed the plot is. I have four distinct movie-watching personalities:

1. Mr. Serious Q. Fartist

Any film from America is garbage. Linear plot lines are for philistines, and when possible film an entire movie from the first person angle. I want my films to be critiques of societal structure and cross-dressing schoolteachers. Bonus points if I have to look up what the film meant to understand it.

2. Mr. Giant Fucking Explosion

Any film with Jason Statham or Vin Diesel is immediately elite. Bronson, Norris and Lee Marvin are the godfathers of all modern film. Leave your feelings at the door, and if your plot has anything more than "guy kills things and fucks anyone," GO BACK TO THE EDITING ROOM.

3. Mr. Gaping Wounds

No films by Eli Roth belong in this category. He is a fucking hack. Meanwhile, Argento, late 70's early 80's Italian Zombie flicks and Death Race 2000 (The Original) are necessary viewing. Bonus points for horrific sound editing and people getting their eyes gouged out. Terrible jump cuts are a plus, as are child protagonists who watch their entire families get cut down by evil dwarves.

4. Mr. Battered Wives

It's four in the afternoon and you're rifling through channels when you find, "Under the Tuscan Sun." And two and a half hours later your jaw has hit the floor. Any film starring Tori Spelling is a must. Drunken stepfathers, spousal abuse, stalker ex-boyfriends and montages of crying menopausal women make this genre a must-watch.

I know full well Avatar will be vacant, and the Pocahontas rip-off is what it is. Need I bring up other examples of great films that are rip-offs of other works (The Departed, Kurosawa's major works, Disney fables, etc.)?

All that really matters is that sometimes, and only sometimes, I like being dumb. Really super duper dumb. A dumb dummy. Dumb.

did you see avatar? it sucked.

2010-01-14T11:36:00.003-06:00

the last word on avatar came from the inimitable IOZ some three weeks ago. there's nothing to add to that really.

just one point: the idea in this movie is that the oppressed people of the world have yet to resort to violence, and if only they would start killing people then the mean colonialists would leave, because if there's one thing that colonial forces are a-scared of, it's fighting

BECK V PALIN

2010-01-13T12:18:00.004-06:00

think of glenn beck as a panicky, overserious muppet. this will help. but once you've taken this step you should really make the time to watch his show. it airs once at 5PM (for those ancient humans who eat dinner buffets at 5PM in places that have a TV tuned to fox news), and again at 2AM (for angry insomniac crackers, cleaning their guns and waiting for the internet to put up some new porn).

normally, it's just glenn gyrating in front of a blackboard, jotting down huge dollar amounts at random, calling obama a communist (if only...), and then saying: "hello? it makes sense!" sometimes he sits at his desk and the small filipino children he has chained under there have to start earning their keep.

today is different. today he's going toe to toe for the entire hour with the hottest thing to come within ten yards of john mccain since anti-aircraft fire, sarah palin. now i don't pretend to know what is going to be said during this hour, but as an ardent beck-watcher, i can promise you it is going to be absolutely fucking insane. imagine a romantic-type chick-flick in which every role is somehow played by either chris farley or jack black.

tonight. one night only. spend an hour with glenn and sarah, two of the craziest motherfuckers this great nation has to offer.

On Simon Cowell's Buttock

2010-01-12T15:51:00.005-06:00

Several news outlets are reporting that Simon Cowell will leave American Idol. As I have yet to watch a single episode of AI, two shits are appropriately given by the author. However, I love this choice quote he released:

"I just felt like doing something new."

I would feel the same way if I were Cowell. I would get sick of making 36 million dollars a season to sit in a chair and experience people making a spectacle of themselves. All that chair sitting is painful. If I'm Simon Cowell, I DO NEED A CHANGE. SHIT, I'MA GONNA CLIMBA MOUNTAIN. Anything, anything but sit in a chair all day rolling my eyes.

And Cowell's next endeavour...hosting X Factor, a talent show where the hosts...get ready...sit in chairs for hours on end, watching people make a spectacle of themselves.

You didn't need a change, Cowell. You needed to get away from Seacrest, he of the scary shiny teeth and permanent 5 o'clock shadow.

Meanwhile, hope your buttocks are ready for MORE SITTING.

what was that?

2010-01-12T14:10:00.005-06:00

i had just written a long post ragging on the new vampire weekend album and review, only to find that the be-ringed j-temperance has returned from his year-long honeymoon. which is good, because his post was much better than mine.

so let me just say two things.

1) while this album certainly sucks, and certainly represents a whole lot of what i hate about all of my dweeby neighborhood-stealing artist friends who live in brooklyn, sales from this album will likely keep XL afloat for another year or two, and after all, they did give us thom yorke's solo album. win-fucking-win.

2) as long as you can still see tony dungy's wierdly-shaped head on TV, i will be putting my phootballs in your mouths in detail every friday. for now, i'll just say that charles woodson played one playoff game, and the opposing quarterback had more touchdowns (5) than incompletions (4). two days later, he's the nfl defensive player of the year. darrelle revis, today my mid-day joint is for you, and the award you should have won.

On Vampire Weekend, Apologists

2010-01-11T16:31:00.005-06:00

It's been a while, folk(s), and I'd like to thank Uticas for holding it down like a champion. I'll keep my future posts short and sweet-like.

1. Awesome call on the Cards/Packers shoot-out. Didn't watch any full game, but saw Ray Rice plow for 85 yards in the Ravens epic beat down and knew it was over.

2. Surprise surprise. Vampire Weekend is still making records. And Pitchfork gives them the good old lazy 8.6 for simply putting out a record.

Vampire Weekend sound like they've fallen in love with what they started and are hugging it tight without shame or apology.

I remember when the Strokes came out with their second record and someone at Rolling Stone said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This was an apology to music fans hoping that the Strokes showed any kind of musical growth. That's fine. It's not like the Ramones took any chances during their epic run in the late 70's. They didn't have to, and neither do VW. They are happy taking their sound to the bank. It works for them and they garner mass appeal. It's simple pop music with an INDIE label.

Meanwhile, this review is filled with useless word-count-inflating phrases, especially when describing the band's supposed ska and anti-grunge aesthetic. To wit:

Adopting what they adopt and rejecting what they reject might make Vampire Weekend look like pretenders, but they're not-- they're reactionaries.

Aren't all artists influenced by other art? What makes VW different? If Animal Collective derive their sound from late-60's post-psychedelic damage folk, does it make me like them any less?

If a tree falls on a music critic in the woods, will Elton John change the words of "Candle in the Wind" again?

Phootball Phriday: long weeked edition

2010-01-08T13:01:00.004-06:00

so yeah, last week was bad. i pick the eagles to walk over the cowboys, and philly gets shut out. i pick the browns to drop their last game, and josh cribs runs them to their fourth straight win. i thought tennessee would cover a six point spread easily, and they failed to. yuk yuk yuk.

well, ok bitches, maybe you should just bet against my picks. like i give a fuck. the jets backed into the playoffs, which has put a pleasant, not cold-as-shit veneer all over everything this week. lucky for them, they go up against a team that they beat 37-0 all of five days ago. this is sort of favorable.
as for cincy, ever since chris henry got himself thrown from the back of a pick-up truck (always one of my favorite hobbies, riding in the back of pick-ups; had no idea i had cheated death so many times), the bengals clearly miss the compliment to ochocinco. without henry, cincy might have the most vanilla offense in the entire playoffs, which also bodes well for the jets' crazy-ass defense.
working against the jets is the fact that the game is being played in cincinatti, and marc sanchez still sucks for the moment. expect to see a lot of brad smith, a lot of punts, and a game determined by whether or not sanchez can loose it all by himself.
jets are two point underdogs. of course i don't like this, so fuck the bengals. jets by one million and fourteen.

the other saturday match-up is another where just last week the same two teams played and one looked like shit. i went with the eagles last week, because i thought their offense would be near impossible to contain. i feel even more certain of this after last week's embarrassing defeat. the eagles will not be shut out two weeks in a row by the same defense. swear to god.
philly's biggest problem would seem to be their linebackers, and look for dallas to exploit this weakness with their run game and with jason witten.
dallas' biggest problem? texas is full of fascists. eagles by ten.

the ravens should have beaten the patriots already this year. they lost that game, because there was a late 15-yard penalty for looking at tom brady cross-eyed (or trying to take him out below the knee, whatever). this time, wes welker is hurt. all you have to do is look at the way the patriots offense performed at the beginning of the season without welker. suddenly, you can afford to pressure brady, his timing is off with everyone else, plays don't develop long enough for randy moss to get down the field; totally different team.
while i would love to see the jets beat the patriots in the AFC championship, i would rather see the jets not have to play the colts next week. both wild cards advance. ravens by four.

finally, the packers may have made the cardinals look overmatched last week, but kurt warner has christ behind his arm. this is the kurt warner/tim tebow blessing, which outspoken evangelist quarterbacks utilize in order to play better than everyone else in a transparent attempt to mock and belittle atheists everywhere. well played, god. well played. cardinals win a shootout.

phootball phriday: minutes before week 17 edition

2010-01-03T10:51:00.004-06:00

the regular season ends tonight when bart scott decapitates carson palmer (worth the fifteen yard penalty) and the jets march into the playoffs. but since i've been wrong about the jets before this year, i'm gonna leave it up to the gods. so this one isn't a "pick", per se. more of a buffalo 66 situation where if jay feeley blows another game i'm gonna walk into his strip club and have a vivid waking dream of blowing his brains out. then i'll go home and spoon christina ricci.

if you want to make some money, find a legitimate gambling site based in barbados or something, and gamble on sports. if you have an addictive personality, like many of us, you'll never understand how you enjoyed football without it.

many of you may never understand how anyone enjoys football at all. to y'all i say, go ahead and enjoy your sunday. like many millions of my countrymen, i will be drunk by sundown.

the browns favored over jacksonville? please. brady quin is a certified bum, as his younger doppelganger jimmy clausen will surely be. true, the browns are only one and a half point favorites; but this mangini-driven trainwreck will close the season on a pathetic note, as mangini-driven trainwrecks tend to.

dallas is a three point favorite over the eagles, and i think that's just crazy. for some reason, philly never gets the respect they deserve. deshean jackson is the new randy moss. throw in a healthy brian westbrook, and the screen pass game he brings, and i'm not sure dallas has a chance. the only way for the boys: sneak TO in by having him wear roy williams' jersey.

the ravens will probably beat oakland. but not by ten points. oakland has won some stupid games this year, games against teams that absolutely shouldn't have lost to them. also don't let the hype fool you, the ravens defense has not done the job this year, and joe flacco isn't quite as good as he appeared last year. baltimore fails to cover the spread. JAMARCUS FTW!

titans are six point favorites against the seahawks. this isn't a big enough spread. vince young has lost only one game as a starter this year, and it was a relatively close call to peyton manning and the once-undefeated colts. young is going to "come out of nowhere" next year to lead his team deep into the playoffs, and in the process he's going to show that a mobile quarterback with a so-so arm and a god-awful release point can excel in today's NFL. this will make room for tim "i write bible verses on my eye black" tebow, who is going to crush at the next level, maybe in some wildcat type offense, maybe located in florida... vince young covers the spread, matt hasslebeck finally retires?

and that's my last lock of the regular season. take my advice, or remain helpless and poor. whatever.

ah, fuck it!

2009-12-19T12:38:00.003-06:00

is animal collective really the best we can do? six or seven years after "sung tongs" crashed the independent music scene with it's stellar second track, followed by forty minutes of dull, tactless experimentation, i'm starting to wonder what it's going to take for them to go out of fashion.

"[A] work that gleefully teeters on the line between accessibility and inscrutability."

and that's what's perfect to these types: the ability to sound experimental while still making music that is "accessible", the holy grail of in-your-face independent music. let's take a look at some definitions of "accessible" with a particular eye on the second and the fourth:

"1. easy to approach, reach, enter, speak with, or use.
2. that can be used, entered, reached, etc.: an accessible road; accessible ruins.
3. obtainable; attainable: accessible evidence.
4. open to the influence of (usually fol. by to): accessible to bribery."

so fuck it, and to anyone who thinks like this, fuck you. and if you're soft, and think this and other efforts from animal collective represent a lot of the best music of the last decade, fuck you with a fucking billy club. in a few years, when you cut off your dreads and start shopping at the gap, you'll finally start looking like what we've always known you are: 2016's palin voters.

oy

2009-12-15T15:22:00.003-06:00

if you thought i wasn't going to touch lists this year, you were wrong. wrong i tells ya. i'll write a whole big long thing no one will read when i have the time. for now, check out the graph on grizzly bear song, the fifth best song of the year.

"A better name would be Teddy Bear, such is unlikely appeal of this unassuming Brooklyn foursome. But just how did they manage to charm the indie elite and Jay-Z and Solange and Beyoncé and your mom and scores of Twilight-addled tweens? [I]t's not the craftsmanship that's winning people over and making them want to spin this one again and again. It's the intangible, of course, the sound of a band that has struck upon something timeless, inspired, holistic, and-- it bears (ahem) mentioning-- utterly wholesome. Some people will hear 'Two Weeks' and instantly feel better about their day, some will want to join a boys' choir, and most will feel the urge to share this exceptional thing with those close to them."

regarding that first question: could it be because the "indie elite" have tastes that are about as well-refined as those of "twilight-addles tweens" and "your mom"? maybe those indie elite are the type of people who put "(ahem)" after their accidental puns (i.e. pussies), and so maybe it's no accident that their picks are overlapping with the suburban petit-bourgeoisie.

nah, couldn't be. grizzly bear has mass-appeal because they're timeless. it's not like they're completely bland and innocuous or anything. no sir. gotta be those intangibles.

revisited: musical exhaustion

2009-12-04T14:05:00.003-06:00

todays p-fizzle review of OOIOO's new effort begins with a paragraph talking about their previous album.

"Japanese all-female group and Boredoms offshoot OOIOO's fifth album, 2006's Taiga, holds a more than respectable score of 78 on Metacritic, but it split Pitchfork listeners. The percussion heavy, often amelodic beast came off as needlessly difficult and even lazy to some staffers, yet Dominique Leone claimed it to be, in so many words, the easiest entry point in the OOIOO catalogue. I don't begrudge either extreme viewpoint: OOIOO's output is divisive for the simple reason that the band has a unique capacity to both wow and disappoint."

on one side, someone says that Taiga is a good place to start if you're interested in liking OOIOO. the other side finds the album "needlessly difficult". both views are cast as "extreme" and the difference is split, earning the new album a 7.4.

contemporary political journalism usually acts like this: describe two opposing positions as opposed, and treating each as 50/50 true, since there are two ides.

but more relevant to my topic is the idea that any music can be "needlessly difficult." "difficult", we've been over many times around these parts. "needlessly" is a new twist for me. as if the album were a confusing legal document, a student loan collection letter, or a health insurance form.

1) it's music. it has no purpose. it's ALL needless.

2) listening to music is not hard. OOIOO demand nothing more of their listeners than does taylor swift.

3) if you don't like an album, the reason simply is NOT that the album is difficult. because that's like saying you don't like a meal because it's furious.

4) and finally, to call an album "lazy" because YOU find it too "difficult" to sit perfectly motionless and listen to it is a new height of absurd pot-kettle-ism.

phootball phriday: too warm for november edition

2009-11-20T12:11:00.004-06:00

so last week got ugly. i made four picks and only hit one of them, and it took the patriots coming up an inch short on fourth down for my one accurate prediction to come true. well, allen greenspan recently said, "when you're right 57% of the time, you're wrong 43% of the time, and that's still pretty good."

49ers over Packers. until last week's ugly win against the ugly bears, the niners had been loading up on close, devastating losses. but why? their defensive front is very strong, good linebackers, an ok-looking quarterback, a running game that should be a lot better than it is. the niners really aren't that bad, and even though the packers pooped all over the cowboys last week, look for them to come out lazy against an underrated playoff contender in san francisco.

Lions over Browns. last week, i picked the browns to surprise the ravens, and cleveland's offense responded by scoring no points and averaging a little more than two yards per snap. there may be a dozen or so college teams who would probably loose to baltimore, probably by a bigger margin, but at least they'd put up a field goal or two. a wierdly pathetic professional sports team, the browns. lions win, giving cleveland the slightly better draft pick, which the lions could really use.

Giants over Falcons. i'd be very surprised if the giants dropped another game. one gets the impression that they got soft early in the season against the NFL's terrible teams (oakland, kansas city, tampa bay, etc.). when up against a stronger foe, the giants have yet to look strong this year. after a bye week and before that a last-second loss to san diego, the truly awful games against the eagles and saints should be behind them. i expect the giants to be well rested and eager to beat a decent team. which they will. unless they play like they did in philly, which was really really bad.

last but not feast: the Jets will beat the Patriots. oh yes. this will happen. much has been made around ESPN's universe regarding jets' coach rex ryan's recent bout with crying in front of a room full of steroid-jacked football players. recently (this is true) i saw "blind date" host roger lodge on a sports talk show saying of this incident, "football is a man's game. can you imagine a big ol' linebacker like bart scott watching that?" yes, rex ryan. roger lodge thinks you're a pussy. ball's in your court.

but i understand why ryan lost his shit: because there's no good reason for the jets to be 4-5. ok, the rookie quarterback, season-ending injuries to the primary offensive and defensive weapons (leon washington and kris jenkins), and a defense that keeps the other team out of the endzone but struggles to hold on to a lead. the jets may have lost five of their last six games, but four of those losses have been by less than a touchdown. only the saints have kept the jets out of a game this year.

and finally, fuck new england. finis.

Surreal Estate: Redux

2009-11-17T11:49:00.004-06:00

back in september, pitchfork did a news piece on the forthcoming debut album from the recently extant band Real Estate. (i wrote about it.) today, less than two months later, the band has joined the fork's "best new music" club, with an album that turns out to be just one and a half points shy of perfect.

in my post about september's news story, i wrote, "people who really like music that makes them remember high school should be banned from the internet."

in today's review, david bevan says, "Over the past year, many of these songs have soundtracked a time when it feels like every kid in or just out of college seems to be handcrafting/clamoring for music that shuttles us back to a time before career choices, adult responsibility, and this recession."

how deeply pathetic is our generation? before we turn twenty, we're already lamenting our lost youth. think about it this way: if we go on like this, what will we have to be nostalgic about ten years from now? still early childhood? damn, some people really hate their armpit hair.

"clamoring" to be free from adult responsibility may indeed be the sound coming out of america's uber-educated white kids, but the notion that this results in some sort of creative movement? nigga please! you're explicitly saying it's a leap backwards! you just fucking said it!!!

no matter, backwards is okay. the past isn't scary, at least not if you're an american who attends or once attended college. it's the future that terrifies these people, in art as in their lives. in art because the future may, at any moment, render useless their intricate understanding of american independent rock music (1980's-present); in their lives because the future threatens to be less fun than high school.

the final paragraph of the reveiw reminds us that you can't write for pitchfork unless you can string together a diarrhea-inducing metaphor. in today's entry, bevan says that even though this is clearly a summer-themed album, "this music transcends the notion of seasons."

holy shit! i once thought i had transcended the notion of seasons, but then i started coming down and realized i was in a bowling alley.

"There's much more at play here than what goes on between the months of June through September." in a related point, sushi has more rice in it than what goes on between 2 and 2:30 in the morning.

real quick

2009-11-15T10:37:00.002-06:00

i know what you're thinking: "is this a full-time football blog, now? what the fuck?!" so i say, "shut up, reader. get a job."

anyway, since i don't have much time,

steelers over bengals. pittsburgh stops the run. palmer makes it interesting, but not that interesting.

colts over patriots. brady deserves to fail, because that's true. fuckin asshole.

browns over ravens. this is a why-the-hell-not surprise pick. i've missed one a week every week so far, so this'll be that one, most likely. but i caught the tail end of a rerun of the drew carey show recently, and cleveland still hasn't been fully compensated for the mimi charachter.

aaaand... cowboys over packers. dallas pass rush is too good, and green bay gives up too many sacks as it is.

a lot of weak ass games today. go for a walk or something.

phootball phriday: jets bye week edition

2009-11-06T11:53:00.006-06:00

so last week i was three for four in my picks, my only miss being the jets, who totally outplayed miami anyway, ask anyone. that being the case, i'll give it another shot.

first up, baltimore at cincinatti. now it's clear that a bengal would beat a raven in a straight-up fight, but only if the raven wanted to fight. if it just flew away, the tiger wouldn't stand a chance. for that reason, if baltimore comes out on sunday and is able to fly, expect them to win. if not, cincinatti starts locking down the division.

maimi at new england. tough to call. maimi has proven that you never know when they're gonna come up with three freak touchdowns in a quarter, so watch out patriots. but brady's warming up, and if miami wins it's good for the jets, and good for the jets almost never happens. patriots by a lot.

tennessee at san francisco. one of the league's strongest 3-4 teams goes up against easily the best 1-win team out there. seriously, this game is gonna be fun. vince young finally did it the way jeff fischer likes it, so now the former heisman-winner is getting a chance to play (taking over for the nfl's best rasputin look-alike, the quarterback who won't die, kerry collins). look for the titans to be a threat on the ground. the niners, on the other hand, have also given over the starting qb job to the guy who clearly deserves it, alex smith. with michael crabtree and frank gore hitting their strides, this team could actually be good enough to sneak into the playoffs. this one's almost too close to call, but san francisco is a silly place. titans by four.

and last but also least, dallas at philadelphia. tony romo's powers get exponentially weaker the further he is from that 8,000-foot screen in his new home stadium. they have big screens in philly as well, but they just aren't big enough. romo's gonna play like superman in a kryptonite jock-strap. no spread is too big. eagles continue to roll.

some people deserve a chance

2009-11-06T11:27:00.004-06:00

thus is the conclusion of this bit of noisy nostalgia. (this time it's a birthday party we get to remember) marc richardson is a dumb piece of shit and i hope he googles his name frequently enough to find this.

after quoting jim o'rourke saying this: "You can no longer use context as part of your work [...] because it doesn't matter what you do, somebody's going to change the context of it;" marc richardson responds with this: "The O'Rourkes of the world may argue that this trend is a bad thing, but it's obviously going to open a new world of experience, and right now we're just scratching the surface of possibility."

first of all, "scratching the surface of possibility" is a piss poor turn of phrase. second of all, "a new world of experience" is also a pretty meaningless group of words. it's the "new world" that makes it okay to steal music, makes it okay that even successful musicians all over america are going broke. the "old world", where people paid musicians for their work, and musicians had say in how that work was structured -- a thing of the past!

except, and here's the crucial part, except when marc richardson believes artists "know what they're doing". for them, "i give myself over to their work in a very particular way." so you're actually supposed to pre-determine, before hearing anything, whether or not an artist is supposed to be taken seriously. if yes, BUY WHOLE ALBUM. if no, download shit for free and continue "scratching the surface of possibility."

it turns out marc richardson's other job -- you know, when he's not ruminating -- is telling people what music they should take seriously. it's for this reason that i don't doubt him when he says: "These are exciting times."

i'm sure they are.

football blogging returns

2009-10-30T11:51:00.008-05:00

after a fast start, my Jets have gone 1-3 in their last four games, losing nose tackle kris jenkins and running back/return man/superman leon washington to injury, both for the whole season (i wonder if anyone ever tried just breaking superman's fibula). sanchez should probably be gearing up for a big pac-10 matchup with oregon, but alas, he's leading an NFL offense. our third-string wide receiver was an option quarterback at missouri, and our starting wide-receiver is under indictment for punching lebron james' friend, a crime which bears the death penalty in cleveland.
all in all, things look pretty good. one game back of the patriots, having taken the first head-to-head, the Jets need to beat Miami on sunday in order to stay contenders in the AFC east. look for sancez to have another decent game against the porous Miami secondary, and the Jets will take it home if they can just keep the wildcat to under 12 yards per snap. with this win, the Jets may finally start believing that this is finally their year to get out of the first round.

after two strong wins, the Saints (seen above in cheerleader form) are widely considered the class of the NFL, and it's difficult to disagree at this point in the season. Brees finally looks like he was always supposed to, reggie bush is one of the best north-south runners in the game, and safety darren sharper scores more touchdowns than the chiefs. this week they go up against Atlanta on monday night. take new orleans and the points, saints stay undefeated.

the ridiculously over-rated giants have a big game on sunday, going all the way to philadelphia. one gets the feeling that michael vick is due for a game where he actually sees some playing-time, and if that happens i expect the suddenly so-so giants defense to end up looking silly. eli, for all of his ability, still misses plexico, but ahmad bradshaw and brandon jacobs should be gearing up for big afternoons. eagles by 6, but if vick is limited to five or six snaps again, the giants win behind eli's two-minute drill.

finally, brett favre goes back to green bay. the vikings look very very good. they have one of the best running backs of all time, one of the best quarterbacks playing, and a very strong pass rush, not to mention the explosive precy harvin. wisconsin will continue to be a loser state, but this is hardly favre's fault.

seen

2009-10-23T11:06:00.003-05:00

one of the greatest lines from one of the worst movies ever, Saw:

"stop acting!"

with Saw VI coming out this year, they've now been putting out one of these every year since 2004. what's sad is that perhaps two generations will have this series locked in as their "friday the 13th", "children of the corn", or even "leperachaun". but where those films spent most of their time killing off one main character at a time until one or two of them get away, the Saw series expends all of its creative energy coming up with truly pornographic methods of torture to be used against characters who die so quickly you never get a chance to figure out why they deserve to die.

twenty years down the line, when someone wants to know about the '00s (again, pronounced "oooohs"), i'd make them watch "the Wire", and then the Saw series; then i'd make them guess which one was more popular.

music as music criticism

2009-10-13T11:34:00.003-05:00

in today's pitchfork review of Neon Indian's "Psycic Chasms", marc hogan lets something slip that i've been suspicious of for some time now:

"'Borrowed nostalgia for the unremembered 80s.' Those words, when James Murphy over-enunciated them on what's still arguably the decade's best piece of music-as-music-criticism-- LCD Soundsystem's 2002 debut single, 'Losing My Edge'-- had the decisive feel of a gauntlet being thrown down."

fantastic that it's only "arguably" the best piece of "music-as-music-criticism" of the decade. lots of princes vying for that crown, i guess. but let's get real folks. "music-as-music-criticism" is what passes for innovation these days. this is a problem to me.

at the end: "A new generation's borrowed nostalgia? High time."

high time indeed.

listen, if our decade is associated with music-as-music-criticism, and music-as-music-criticism for some reason necessarilly draws on 80's influences, then musically our decade has been an explicit, transparent effort to recreate the 80's. in today's example you can practically hear marc hogan ripping out whole fistfulls of his pubic hair when he writes about Duck Tales, or Weezer, or Reagan.

these critics, who give us these terrible bands that get famous so rapidly and inorganically, are people who are having trouble growing up. it's okay. we all are. but i really think it's about time to put this 80's thing to rest. with luck, we'll be around for forty, fifty more years, and i, for one, don't want to spend all that time thinking about my childhood. i'm actually kind of curious to see what comes next...

The Truth

2009-10-07T11:55:00.001-05:00

wampire veekend

2009-10-02T13:29:00.003-05:00

frontman ezra koenig shows signs of wear and tear in this interview. i can't quite put my finger on why i find it interesting. i guess it would be this (and i am as guilty of this as perhaps anyone on the planet): writing songs against elitism, constantly reiterating that you are not one of those "elitists", that people who think you are are wrong, these are essentially elitist activities. is it such a coincidence that a band so explicitly concerned with elitism would end up being called elitists themselves? the only people who seem to be bothered by "elitism" as a topic, or an accusation, are themselves wealthy and educated; but in their hatred of elitism they actually find a way to think themselves better than all the wealthy, educated people who don't bother to worry about such things. the elite among the elite. love this independent music.

"With the first album, I noticed some people would never give us the benefit of the doubt about any lyrics that referenced class or education. They would be so offended that a song would be called 'Oxford Comma' that they didn't understand how it's a song about anti-elitism."

and who are these people who refused you the benefit of the doubt? totally missing your "anti-elitism" streak?

"Essentially it's just a bunch of college-educated people trying to compete for who has it tougher, when the truth is none of us had it tough."

oh i see. it's not you who's the phony elitist, it's the people who called you a phony elitist. neat!

were you aware...

2009-10-02T11:36:00.004-05:00

that nine of the ten best albums from the last decade came before 2004? this is a sign of a truly brilliant couple years of music, not at all a sign that compiling a list of the best albums of a decade that isn't even over yet is for retards.

seriously, the strokes, radiohead, modest mouse, avalanches... it's high school all over again! to be fair, though, those albums really were the best years of your life.

adventures in BLAWG

2009-09-25T12:29:00.004-05:00

the other week i put the word "kids" at the front of a post title. a comment was left, our first since july. and who left this comment? some fucking robot selling kids music, or some wierd virus thing. don't click through. it's just a robot.

in other news, my most recent post was slamming a news article written by one tom breihan. i found him transparently stupid.

well today he's reviewing a terrible album from a terrible new band called "Girls". first of all, even though he seems to respect the frontman, the fact that his mother was a prostitute is actually placed in the fourth sentence of the review, proving once and for all that press packets are humane. of course, like it's a wonderful life or jerry macgwire (spelled correctly in honor of Mark), there's a happy ending. "Then a local millionaire took Owens under his wing, and Owens moved to San Francisco." and now he has an adopted millionaire father and he's in a hip band. the end. some stories really are tragic, no?

now, if christopher owen, of Girls, did indeed have a very hard childhood, then i imagine it wasn't fun for him. but a little greusome is reading a writer idolize tragedy and poverty in this way, when only three days ago he was waxing nostalgic about his own hazy, dreamy youth in the suburbs. "You don't need to know Owens' story to intuit that there's something going on here. When I saw the band play SXSW, knowing nothing about them beyond their compulsively listenable 'Hellhole Ratrace' single, I wrote that the band's music sounds 'like the work of one deeply weird and possibly sad person.'" so being weird and sad, having a mother forced into prostitution... GOOD! that's COOL to us!

but there's something else going on here. watch: "It's the sort of story that can overwhelm a band so completely that you never really hear their music; you only hear the story. So it's a tribute to Album that you don't need to know one word of that first paragraph to hear it as what it is: a dizzily powerful piece of work." see? we love your tragic upbringing, but we don't want to think about it, and certainly don't want to hear YOU singing about it. write about your break-ups instead, that way your presonal tragedy can be reduced to a preamble, so college graduates who only think gutter punks are cool because they've never had to smell them will go out and buy your album.

tragedy's generally cool, but kind of too sincere for our age. we'd rather a tragic figure sing about really banal shit. that way we can identify with you AND feel superior at the same time.

the big problem is, as always, this band sucks. their music sucks. i mean, you've got to be fucking kidding me. to my ears, it isn't even remotely interesting. they're dull, forgettable, dime-a-dozen pop songs. familiar progressions soaked in reverb, and a white singer whose (totally authentic) self-loathing has taken a curiously audacious and public turn. i've seen this movie before and it sucks.

but what do i know? as with Real Estate a few days ago, Girls is "getting a ton of blog love." more and more, i've come to fully expect such bands to be terrible, allowing for the possibility of a shocking exception or two. and i think i know the reason why these bands always suck: because music blog culture is the full marriage of the music industry and junior-high school popularity politics (i.e. an emotionally stunted mob makes snap decisions about how good a person is, and that person may become royalty, until he does something that confuses or dissapoints the mob, at which point he has to change schools or live out his education as a parriah.)

and bands like this age about as well as the popular kid has.

finally, the phrase "compulsively listenable" should probably have it's eyes plucked out by grape scissors. meaning-wise, it's precisely as dumb as bud light's "drinkability" campaign.

Surreal Estate

2009-09-23T12:10:00.005-05:00

i noticed a curious headline while running my eyes over pitchfork's "news" section: "Real Estate Announce Debut Album".

i thought: huh... that's odd. usually when a debut album is announced (as opposed to simply being released), it's coming from some long-awaited supergroup, which of course goes on to suck.

recently, though, bands that haven't produced a full work, are having their debut albums pimped. all you need is just less than six songs to stay popular with just more than 500 writers for a little more than a month, and your in. black kids was a perfect example of this, and if you click through to that real estate story, you can see it all happening again.

"Hazy Jersey-based indie poppers Real Estate have been setting our RSS feeds on fire all summer with tracks like 'Fake Blues' and 'Black Lake'-- blurry, innocent evocations of high school beach trips and first tokes."

now i haven't bothered to listen to the music. my internet's kinda shitty these days, and anyway it's been a while since i've gotten excited by something that sets "RSS feeds on fire". to be sure, though, the language is pretty fucking revealing. this writer, one Tom Breihan, misses high school.

those were the days, no? playing hookie, "blurry, innocent" trips to the beach, that "first toke"... all this shit's rushing back to me, it's like PROUST!

but seriously, people who really like music that makes them remember high school should be banned from the internet. nevertheless, with song titles like "suburban dog", "let'srock the beach", and "suburban beverage", you can't blame a 20-something for getting sucked in. after all, many 20-somethings are FROM the suburbs, and can totally relate. (it, like, sucks there because of your parents, but it can be totally fun sometimes cuz you can drive to the beach and there's parties!)

but who am i to judge? the blogs are abuzz about this band. and we all know how important blogs are. (cue crickets)

kids: DON'T GO TO COLLEGE OR YOU'LL TURN OUT LIKE THIS

2009-09-04T12:29:00.003-05:00

http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lists/7693-the-top-500-tracks-of-the-2000s-20-1/2/

as i recently warned, pitchfork has put up their top 500 songs of the last ten years (which comes out to roughly one song for every week). and yes, the "list" (such as it is) is pretty silly, with basement jaxx and robyn getting quite a bit of attention, with a top 20 cracked by such mainstream non-artists as rhianna and justin timberlake, and more animal collective on hand than freshman orientation.

but that's not really important. to put together an accurate list of 500 songs is about as easy as putting together an accurate list of the top 500 restaurants on the east coast. it's part fool's errand, but its true purpose mostly is to give a handful of arrogant people a platform to wax educated about media and culture and stuff.

each and every song gets a paragraph. the examples of purely god-awful writing are too numerous to be chronicled. from some guy's belief that Joanna Newsom meant to invoke "whores" when she said "horse", to ridiculous overuse of the gerund, to the fact that anyone who wrote a song about new york was really singing about 9/11; the writing is just hackery. i mean, how many times can you publish the phrase "it goes without saying" before it starts looking like a red flag?

but even that's not really important, at least not to me right now. what i wanted to write about (i got distracted; don't like it? continue not reading.) was the way in which almost all of these writers discuss "what happened in music". the passive voice is used a lot. some bands "were never heard from again". some songs "are indellibly associated" with certain years. aside from being poor writing, this betrays a deep lack of appreciation for the critic's role in the whole process. it's YOU that chooses to notice something or not, to like it or hate it, not some invisible modernizing, culturizing force. a band that pleases one person consistently shouldn't automatically be recast as a band who "has longevity". an artist hasn't "dropped off the face of the earth" just because you haven't written up his last three albums. it's the pools from which the list was drawn that are pre-selected. they have already manufactured taste, now it only must be prioritized, and explained as the result of a mystical, natural process. UGH.

one more thing: marc richardson says, "If the songs on this list were chosen solely by how they captured the zeitgeist in independent music, 'Losing My Edge' would be an easy #1." and i'm afraid i agree with him. a comfortable, computer-owning music appreciator throws together a garage band beat, each new layer being introduced at perfectly predictable intervals, with all the depth of a casio demo-beat; meanwhile the computer-owner talks about cool things he likes, and he's being ironic, but he really kind of isn't, but really he is, but honestly he's lost his edge because he's not cool anymore, but he's actually the sole arbiter of what's cool.... etc.

i don't blame the song for sucking heartily, nor do i blame those who disagree and think it doesn't suck. i blame the critic, the person who says it "captures the zeitgeist in independent music" thus defining the boundaries of said zeitgeist without actually making a creative contribution. i'm not sure about you, but in my zeitgeist, we're not sitting around, pawing at our bald spots, wondering how being middle class and having impeccable taste simply hasn't made us more attractive.

one one more thing: white people have just gotten through "revolutionizing" dance music in the same way that columbus "revolutionized" the americas. when columbus arrived, a whole mess of people were already there, yet still there's a lot of talk about his "discovery".

THE DECADE IS OVER! THE DECADE IS OVER!

2009-08-17T12:52:00.001-05:00

well, kind of. i mean, the decade will be over, in seventeen months, five if you don't count right. whatever, the decade is over. do you people even know what that means?

it means soon we get to find out what were the best albums, tracks, and music videos of the last ten years. we'll surely get to find out what some writers think the decade "meant" -- lots of long essays about mp3's, about how online distribution is SO FUCKIN AWESOME!

one thing's for sure: the current crop of pitchfork writers is probably starting to get nostalgic for their college days. consequentially, look for smarmy indie dance bands to be extremely well represented (you know, fast guitar music with no backbeat [whites gotta dance, too]), competing most directly with smarmy indie folk bands (sweet christ on a cracker, i hate those woodland brooklynites who seem to practice their instruments as frequently as they shave).

expect certain TITS bands to be erased down the memory hole (black kids, arctic monkeys, clap your hands...), and expect the editorial staff to show diversity of taste by including a bunch of hip-hop records that they never bothered to promote.

i won't miss the 00's (pronounced "oooohs"). it's kind of been a militarist corporatist nightmare of a decade. if there's one thing we can learn from it, it's that dystopian writers like Huxley and Orwell weren't as imaginative as modern-day republicans and democrats.

musically? general taste has been eviscerated by the atomization of the public, corporate sponsership of music is UP (sales are, of course, DOWN), and brittney spears had more fight in her than the beta band.

while pitchfork has presided over the death of anything like counter-culture, many of us just last november participated in the untimely death of political activism. the next decade's movers and shakers need to survey the wreckage, and realize that being king of the mountain now means only that you reach the peak of a pile of rubble.

morrissey, box sets, and reissues

2009-08-11T11:31:00.003-05:00

so EMI is putting out two box sets of morrissey singles, and morrissey is pissed(through a fansite) because EMI hasn't paid him any money for seventeen years, and since he's in no position to collect royalties from songs he doesn't own, he instructs his fans not to buy the box set.

now, i approve of morrissey's edict, if not his singing. record companies love box sets and reissues and "retrospectives", usually because they own all the rights to the music, don't have to front any money to produce it (it already exists) and make one hundred percent of the profits from sales.

pitchfork has recently unveiled a "reissues" subheading in their "best new music" section, where congolese blues rock meets REM collecters editions. and what do the far flung members of the "best new reissue" category have in common? the artists no longer own the rights to the music being distributed.

YAY FOR SONY!

Friend Request

2009-07-17T10:31:00.004-05:00

so i talk about the fork a lot, and now i have an opportunity to explain why.

every time they publish one of these "poptimist" columns, i know damn well that something stupid is contained within -- something abrasively, arrogantly, obviously stupid. i'm sure one or two can be dug out that aren't masturbatory pieces of garbage, but if that's what you go in suspecting you usually won't be disappointed.

this one, subtitled "chartopia" is quite disturbing in that it addresses much of the crap i've been yelling about on and off for a few years now. he's talking about culture, about our much vaunted "new media", and how it's affected whatever remains of aggregate taste.

he says something that is stupid, and it's importantly stupid. "In a recent blog post, marketing guru Seth Godin touched disdainfully on the much-predicted demise of newspapers, writing 'Neatness is for historians.' This bon mot duly buzzed around the digiverse. Godin was addressing-- and dismissing-- journalism's much-honored role as 'the first draft of history,' its mission to make sense of the world for its readers. Social media, according to Godin and many similar thinkers, give people the tools to do this for themselves."

now here's why this is really stupid. some people call bloggers "citizen journalists". david simon once asked if you would call a man who puts out a small trash fire he sees while on a walk a "citizen firefighter". he then asked if your next conclusion would be that real firefighters are obsolete.

in reality, bloggers tend to be parasitic (as this blog). we live commenting on other companies' actual reporting. foreign policy blogs link to the new york times and the washington post, and most people don't follow links, meaning readers are consuming the product of a news company, but the company itself has no imaginable way to profit from it. aggregators (blogger's spell check doesn't recognize this last word; is it made up?) like google news and huffington post are the biggest violators of this, but the same dynamic exists for low-traffic blogs.

now, extend this to "social media" (i'm now realizing how orwellian this term truly is). some asshole TWEETS about a band; of the thirty five people who read his TWEETS let's say five take interest in the band; of those five presumably plugged-in folks, let's say one buys a few songs on itunes, while the rest torrent every single song the band has ever recorded and proceed to live the rest of their lives with thirty additional never-to-be-listened-to mp3s. the artist thanks the tweeter for the additional eight cents of income.

the problem with newspapers going out of business is that in order to produce news you actually have to pay some poor cunt to go somewhere and ask some questions and write some shit down. as adorably motivated as most "citizen journalists" are, someone needs to buy your food while you sit around at courthouse all day. reporting news is not an inherently profitable thing to do. neither is making music.

what tom ewing promises in his column is that social media allows people "to make sense of the world". i disagree. i think social media confuses its users, and disrupts any perception of the difference between the real world (of people, things) and the digital world (of pixels, numbers). as this happens, the real life institutions of the real world (newspapers, concert venues, etc.) die very rapidly, because the entire money-having nation spends ten hours out of every day typing and staring and typing and staring and typing and staring, all the while expanding their knowledge of everything, finding more people they know, being lords of their own universe.

sideshow bob once threatened to kill all television from a jumbotron, and i feel kind of like him, i guess. a luddite born in the 80's has a hell of a time these days. at the end of his sprawling, unfocused column, mr. ewing actually says, "There is still a great deal to be poptimistic about." as a musician, i find myself in another camp.

"social networking" (another phrase our society could probably do without) is incredibly useful for self-promotion. as an artist without any institutional support, it's more or less irreplaceable. but the rest of you, those non-creative people, whose generosity has fed us guitarists since the birth of our profession, you need to get off your god damn screens (right after you agree to attend my show). stop talking to each other all the fucking time and do something!

there's only so much that people can share. part of the equation has always been injecting new ideas, previously non-existent and unknowable, into the stream. mr. ewing thinks new media can do this job just fine, and that's why i called him stupid before. for real culture to happen, culture that we can be proud to pass to our children one day, we need to interact with one another in a way that can never be mechanized, a way that simply won't be made obsolete by tiny little machines that break if you kick them.

i'm talking, of course, about live music and fucking. who's with me?!

this post has been heavily influenced by african rhythms

2009-07-13T11:08:00.003-05:00

pitchfork has an interview up of the dirty projectors guy, and even though he's talkiing about the fact that he's more of a band than a one-man act, even as we see pictures of the newly formed group being a group, the interview is with the guy and the guy alone, who says an awful lot of shit. wow, what a lot of thoughts he has. must be sharp.

anyway, what i want to focus on is the african influence section of the interview. check:

Pitchfork: You've been influenced by musical styles from Africa, and I wondered if you could speak to what you've listened to and the avenues you took to find it.

DL: To me it started with being into just sort of like, Motown shit, and into some of the earlier James Brown shit. And then there's that Brian Eno essay about the return of these Americanized African music to Africa, in music like Fela Kuti. I guess that's where I began, and I quickly ran through a whole bunch of those Nonesuch and the Okura discs, more like ethnomusicological folk musics.

And there's that book by John Chernoff, African Rhythm and African Sensibility, in the same way that Ian McDonald's Revolution in the Head served as a kind of gateway to me getting into 4-tracking and the recording artifice as something to be into.

Pitchfork: What do you think that influence has brought to your music?

DL: I don't know. I guess it's an ideal for me to take what you love in the same way that you take elements of your life, your personal experiences or whatever, and digest them into something new and incoherent. I like the idea of trying to make what you love unrecognizable. Although Bitte Orca is also sort of about doing the opposite of that.

i've omitted nothing. this is the entire bit of conversation on african anything in the whole stupid interview. seriously, it's as if it's a major influence, only it's not at all, even for a moment, relevant to any of the direct questions asked previously. when the journalist (hehe) asks questions about specific songs, about lyrical phrases, about various creative choices that were made, african music does not come up.

when prompted, however, by the statement "You've been influenced by musical styles from Africa," Mr. Dirty Projector, of course, has an answer loaded up. needless to say, the answer is incomprehensible. he heard some records, read a book, and though he likes the idea of making "what you love unrecognizable", his most recent record is about the opposite of that (this last part is a doozy). a simple listen to his music reveals the dearth of African influences, such as the writer means here. does this guy like african music? probably, but if it's altered his music in any significant way i can't tell. (to my ears it still sounds more Lauper than Farka Toure.)

but there's another aspect to this trend (and it is a trend; i have to hear about "african influences" playing out in all these white as paper bands and i'm like "nigga what? nigga please."): if you listen carefully, most indie rock adheres pretty strictly to the twelve-bar blues. arrangements may be getting out there (dirty projectors). vocal harmonies can be piled on top of one another until the listener gets the impression of depth (animal collective). broadly speaking, though, all of these college educated culture-loving wankers are playing songs that were written by people whose FUCKING GRANDPARENTS WERE FUCKING BORN IN FUCKING AFRICA.

just saying.

yo

2009-05-26T12:15:00.004-05:00

this guy's thesis, broadly speaking, is: "The model for record labels was that the U2s paid for the Hold Steadys, and that's supposed to keep regenerating. But obviously the labels aren't able to do that so well anymore because they're shrinking their rosters." this is true, but he misses what is important, which is that bands like the hold steady were always an awkward fit for the mass media industry. t-pain can sell millions of records; simply put, sleater kinney cannot.

you have to shell out a ton of money before you get a marketable mainstream hip-hop album, while the cost of producing an "indie" record ought to be quite modest. with such records, modest sales should be able to reap modest profits. these profits are way too small for GIGANTIC companies like sony and time warner, which is why i've always found it odd that the big labels want anything to do with indie music in the first place. undeterred, however, labels merged and acquired all sorts of smaller, once independent labels over the last ten years (as was the style in the times). and now they bitch that the hold steady doesn't make enough money.

there's another problem here, one which steve knopper, rather oddly, doesn't mention: there aren't any record stores left (if he expects to find a viable profit model for digital distribution, then he should really give the new york times a call; i hear they've been waiting for one of those for a decade). it's hard to make money off of theft, and bundling your digital product (easily attainable for free all over the internet) with a t-shirt and a concert ticket is a stupid fucking idea. the music is the product, and if you can't sell it, then you can't fucking sell it.

at this point i would say, "figure something else out", but that's not what i believe is going to happen. more importantly, that's not what i think SHOULD happen. the record industry is FUCKED, and that's OK. record industry folk believe, as does knopper, that the purpose of a label is to "develop" new artists, but nothing could be further from the truth. an entire, globe-spanning industry has been built on the profits that are made from the sale of music; all of those salaries (fewer and fewer every year, but still) are paid for by the sale of music. they make the music as much as a supermarket makes soda. the industry develops nothing; its only jobs are promotion and distribution.

but the digital revolution is really a self-promotion revolution, and now that there aren't any record stores left, exactly who are they distributing to? and if they're so goddamn good at developing musicians, why are they all broke?

what profits there are to be had from making and selling music will be paltry -- generally, this has always been true and it will always be true. music may even be such a poor career choice that it might make sense for us to declare ourselves "not-for-profits". shit, my private liberal arts college did that, and they charged 36 grand a year. but whatever the particulars are of whatever future model we can imagine, i would hope only that ALL profits generated by the sale of music return to those who were integrally involved in the creation of that music.

the key word there, of course, is "integrally". edgar bronfman may own dozens of different imprints, he may be very rich, but it's creativity that makes music, not capital.

my advice to decaying labels would be this: if you want to make money selling music, maybe you should write a song or two; i insist, however, that you stop shitting down my throat and calling it cake.

dear fork

2009-05-06T12:28:00.003-05:00

you really need to be more selective with your "best new music" category. for instance, the music nick cave released over 20 years ago isn't "new". the vaselines recorded some music 17 years ago, but if sub-pop is willing to put it out , then sure, it'll be some of the best new music out there.

simply put, any release commemorating that it's been decades since a record's inception simply should not be presented as new, let alone the best of what newness has to offer. if you consider music from the age of thatcher "new", i think you're officially becoming old and lame.

meanwhile, tara jane o'neil has released a new album, and while it does garner three whole paragraphs full of praise (about half the length of the vaselines review), i can't say i'm surprised that the work of a prolific and relevant songwriter is simply not as best (or maybe not as new) as the music nick cave put out while i was breastfeeding.

no disrespect to mr. cave, of course.

did you know

2009-04-25T15:05:00.005-05:00

...that "nightmare on elm street III" and "boogeyman II" are very, very simmilar movies? the former stars a young larry fishburne; while the latter showcases anne from "arrested development" dying at the hands of, yes, the boogeyman. both films are classic "gather some kids and kill all but two of them" stories, both taking place in mental assylums, hellholes where even after half of them are dead, the inmates cannot reach the outside world.

the only difference, aside from two decades of AMERICUH, is that freddy kruger is astonishingly vulgar (pretty chill about calling jailbait horror movie starlets "bitch" and "cunt"); while "boogeyman II" spends much more time graphically destroying the flesh of young hot institutionalized teenagers.

teenage mutilation is HOT -- teenage sexuality is NOT.

you know, this band makes me think of this band which makes me think -- wait, what's playing?

2009-04-21T08:49:00.007-05:00

Art Brut
Hold Steady
Counting Crowes
Bloc Party
Franz Ferdinand
Velvet Underground
Gang of Four
John Darnielle
Jeffery Lewis
Jens Leckman
Los Campesinos!
The Tough Alliance
Nodzzz
Kanye
Jonathan Richman
Frank Black
Coldplay
Brian Eno
U2
Weezer
The Smiths
Death Cab for Cutie
Travis Kooks
Kaiser Chiefs
Razorlight
Iggy Pop
Vampire Weekend
Beatles vs. Stones

ok, what do all of these bands have in common? they are all mentioned in pitchfork's review of the new Art Brut record, "Art Brut v. Satan" which i'm fairly confident will suck just as much as everything they've ever put out.

the record recieves a 7.7 rating, while drawing the critic's attention to no less than 26 bands whose records he isn't reviewing. i've read tepid reviews of tepid records where the critic has actually talked about the music. for, like, the whole thing. imagine that!

in the few parts when he's not dropping names, you kind of wish he would. "It's not irony, it's self-aware sincerity."

"The beautiful people and their sycophants will always outnumber lovable losers. But this is a record I like."

and my personal favorite...: "Not that Satan gives a damn about songs that communicate aspects of everyday life with clarity and human charm."
check it, "human charm". way better for music than "horse charm". even better is the idea that the album "communicates aspects of everyday life"; which aspects are being communicated really doesn't seem to matter. so long as the songs aren't challenging to figure out ("clarity"), and are delivered with the Supreme Ironic Pose of the Decade ("self-aware sincerity").

we are told that Art Brut's 2005 piece of shit full-length "Bang Bang Rock & Roll" is "the closest our decade has come to The Modern Lovers", and i suppose that's meant as praise. putting aside the fact that the album was obviously, stunningly awful, isn't it a little wierd that this guy (Marc Hogan), who seems to like this band very much, can't find much of anything to say about what the record sounds like? all he can talk about are other bands that he likes, and a few that he doesn't. are the sounds on this album really that forgettable? that they receed into the background while making you wish you were listening to iggy pop? IS THAT GOOD?!?!

we are left to assume that Art Brut is now filling the middle ground between the Mountain Goats, Gang of Four, Velvet Underground, U2, and Vampire Weekend. i admit, i've often had mad visions of fusing all of those styles together, but it's kind of like that scene in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, where the fat guy orders the whole menu. the waiter asks, "would you like each dish individually, or mixed up in a bucket?"

just LOOK at this asshole

2009-04-17T10:43:00.003-05:00

i stopped writing here precisely because i didn't want to sound like this asshole. now, i think people who use "twitter" are fucking retarted. my anti-technology streak is so strong now that i struggle to stop myself from knocking perfect strangers' phones out of their hands, while they check their screens to look at a map which can show them EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE!!!
William Bowers, over at the pitched fork, feels the same way. but he can't just say as much. he has to use a lot of space to make clear how sincere his luddite pose really is.
"You want gauche? I got no game console. I got no cell phone. I've never been in an American Apparel store, despite their advertising's relentless, almost artless ass-baiting. You want archaica? I still read books. In a rocking chair. On a porch." to which my response is: (1) who gives a fuck you miserably self-involved piece of shit?! you have a rocking chair? and a porch? you read BOOKS? and here i was thinking hundreds of millions of americans read books in chairs every single fucking day. (2) so you refuse to buy american apparel, bully for you. but short of a full-on consumer boycott, you're essentially doing their market research for them (i.e. since you've given no particular reason to avoid the company aside from your general disposition, and since you've indicated no opposition to "buying stuff" per se, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the brand doesn't resonate with you).
he also, of course, needs to anticipate his reader's reaction and pre-empt it with a subtle blend of self-mockery and masturbatory reference-dropping (no quotes necessary; follow the link if you don't already know exactly what this sounds like.)
among many other objections (the fact that a pitchfork writer is bemoaning our culture's deteriorating attention span is one; the fact that, "It champions impulsive utterance at the same time that it highlights the disposability of that utterance. It reduces communication to the parameters of an advertisement. Make your pitch, bark your slogan, get out," is written about twitter and not about pitchfork would be another), i'd like to point out that the word "populist" has been sucked dry of any meaning whatsoever.
consider: "It is a lot more populist and I think that can be attributed to Twitter's significantly larger userbase. Everyone from teenage Hannah Montana fans to Rachmaninov-loving college professors are on Twitter. So you get a pretty interesting diversity between the songs typically tweeted about." in this quote, from an unnamed executive at a private company, people who are too poor to afford computers simply don't exist. "everyone... are [sic] on twitter."
but many of us make exactly this mistake: technology that costs a hell of a lot of money to access is "democratizing". the ability for people with cell phones and computers to communicate with other people who have cell phones and computers -- of course that means "everyone can talk to everyone." who else is there?
with all the references that William Bowers tosses into the mix (bon iver, kubrick, voltaire, emily dickensen... you get the point, motherfucker's been to school and back), almost none of them seem to have any relevance to his argument, whatever that might be. they are, at best, tangentially related to tangents. so, i'm gonna suggest one, that could have saved the author a lot of mental gymnastics. (something tells me, however, that the gymnastics are precisely what he enjoys, in which case, has he tried twitter?)
a simple line from thoreau, which could really substitute for the entire article and still have more resonance: "can it be, perhaps, that massachusets and texas have nothing to talk about?"

The Art of Nit-picking

2009-02-17T10:46:00.002-06:00

In Pitchfork/Nate Patrin's nice little ode to Paul's Boutique, Nate managed to slip this little gem into the article whilst describing lyrics:

They were still happily at home affecting low-class behaviors: hucking eggs at people on "Egg Man"; going on cross-country crime sprees on "High Plains Drifter"; smackin' girlies on the booty with something called a "plank bee" in "Car Thief";

Do you know what a "plank bee" is? Neither do I. Because there is no such thing as a plank bee.

The line should read as: "I smacked her in the booty with a plank, b."

Bee should read as short for "boy." Why this bothers me so much I know not. It just seems so logical, so part of familiar slang. It's not a silly make-up word. It's a known rap colloquialism that shouldn't be hard to decipher by someone who spent half the article glamorizing the Golden Age of hip-hop.

bragging rights

2009-02-03T11:35:00.003-06:00

the other day, hours before the super bowl, i predicted that edgerin james needed four yards per carry for the cardinals to win.

i humbly submit, dear reader, that i was absolutely right. if james could've been counted on for a few yards, then the cards don't pass the ball so predictably on short yardage in the red zone, thus no interception, thus a four point arizona lead at the half. a whole different wax of ball.

kurt warner had god on his side, and it showed. unfortunately, it was the defensive co-ordinator, not god, who put the cardinals in a cover 2 in the end zone.

i submit to you that you should listen to me any time i tell you what the x-factor is going to be.

as for my beloved knicks, i fear their x-factor is not letting a guy put up 60 on their home court. stiff upper lip!

a little stuff you might want to skip

2009-02-01T13:45:00.001-06:00

one of the reasons why i've lost interest in blogging about music critics in the past is that i don't only care about music critics. politically, i'm something of an alarmist, which can get frustrating, because in polite company (really, any company) i've learned to shut my mouth, because people hate it when you talk about politics (unless you're talking about elections). since there are no people on the internet -- just ghosts -- i've decided to let off some steam over here.

the ongoing struggle in my one-time home of oakland is heating up again. on new year's eve, a BART police shot an unarmed black man as he was subdued, face-down on a subway platform. several transit riders made cell-phone videos of the execution, and this set off a string of protests which turned violent several weeks back.

this is, so far, a milder version of riots we've seen before in this country (los angeles, newark). they tend to involve what usually ends up being called "senseless violence". in truth, it only takes a bit of examination to see otherwise. young black men attack commercial real estate (i.e. the prevailing social order) in response to an especially heinous state action, which only confirms and amplifies a belief that urban youths of many races share, namely that they are VICTIMS of the prevailing social order. just because the actions aren't really constructive doesn't mean that they aren't logical. indeed, what use is being constructive when you are essentially redundant to the structure itself?

here is a link to today's san francisco chronicle story about today's protests. what i would like to draw attention to is the comments, about a third of which have been deleted by the editors.

some samples:

"90% of these 'Bad cop' shootings could be avoided. Take a lesson...just follow the 2 simple rules!! Its so easy, even a fool can do it!!! Rule 1: Do exactly as you are told to do when confronted by the Police. Rule 2: Do as Rule 1 sez, otherwise you may be shot!!! Re-read it if the words are too big or difficult. ......Idiots......." (this comment, as of this moment, has 35 thumbs up, and 7 thumbs down from other readers)

three comments later: "Oscar Grant did exactly as he was told by the police, and he got shot in the back." (six thumbs up, forty four thumbs down)

"50 people blocking Broadway and chanting meaningless slogans like 'no justice, no peace,' and mugging for the cameras -- which is exactly what I saw these brainless jackasses doing from my office window -- doesn't accomplish anything, either. Except make an already broke city go even further in the hole with police overtime." (fifty three thumbs up, four thumbs down; in which the poorest people in the city are held responsible for THE MONEY IT COSTS TO OPRESS THEM!!!!!)

"'be arrested for unlawful assembly'.....how can this be? Is there no freedom to assemble in the USA? No freedom to demonstrate?" (twelve thumbs up, thirty three thumbs down.)

what gets me down is that this is happening in the bay area. i assure you that each and every author quoted above (not to mention all those thumbs) voted for obama. yet even in oakland, the oppressed becomes the criminal; the state, the victim.

a young student is tased by campus police for the act of asking a disagreeable question of john kerry, and the desperate yelp he manages to get out between massive electric shocks ("don't tase me, bro") becomes a national punchline. the banking industry literally steals $700 billion from the treasury, and the newspaper blames "low-income borrowers" who defaulted on their criminally structured mortgages.

california prisons house over 750,000 inmates (roughly the population of wyoming). this didn't happen overnight. it's taken thirty years of draconian federal and state law enforcement to get our nation where we are today. (one in every nine black men between the age of 18-29 is currently serving time in prison).

understand, i do not support violence. i don't think armed young men roaming the streets looking for something to destroy is a good thing -- indeed, that's precisely why i feel the way i do. if you're going to wage a war against this nation's urban poor (a popular way to do so at the moment is to vote democrat), you really shouldn't act surprised when your adversary strikes back (and you should thank your caucasian god for how peaceful such responses usually are).

i promise to do this, at most, once a month. apologies.

ladies and germs.... the grammys

2009-02-01T11:01:00.000-06:00

i think the last time i noticed the grammys, i was happy to see soul asylum getting the respect they deserved (they were a much better new artist than SWV). obviously, a lot's changed since then. silverchair couldn't find the staying power that we were promised, the internet stopped being called "the information superhighway", and kurt cobain never rose from the dead. the grammys, though, are forever.

looking through this year's nominations , what catches my eye first is that snoop dogg's "sexual eruption" is nominated for best rap song, which is fantastic.

did you know that beck and radiohead, two of the biggest white names in music the world over, are still making "alternative" albums. that's right. beck, the scientologist, and radiohead, captains of the penthouse underground. other nominees in the best alternative album category are: death cab for cutie, gnarles barkley, and my morning jacket. so "alternative", a word they only invented because some asshole didn't want to call pearl jam "a rock band", is now completely devoid of meaning, or even recognizable traits. i mean, gnarles barkley and my morning jacket ARE IN THE SAME CATEGORY!!!

best electronic/dance album: moby, robyn, kylie minogue, cyndi lauper, brazilian girls, and daft punk (nominated for their live album with no new material). that, reader, is as stale a list as you will ever find. extraordinary that this group of mccain voters (most of these artist reached fame before lebron james hit a growth spurt) are representing the most overcrowded genre this side of rap.

some fun tidbits: judas priest gets a not for best metal song. hope somebody from the industry's buying the plane tickets. boyz II men aparently put out an album last year, and it was good enough to get a nomination. danger mouse, nigel goodrich, and will.i.am go head to head to head for "producer of the year".

what's important to understand is that the record industry was going broke BEFORE the economy contracted 40%. itunes has kept the labels afloat for the last couple years, and the explosion of "20th aniversary" releases and record label retrospectives has kept a older demographic in the fold (the one that has memories of buying records frequently). but the RIAA's gala-throwing days are numbered. this is reflected in the desperate attempt to draw attention to coldplay and lil wayne.

the big labels used to produce dozens of "viva la vida"s every year. rap music still sells pretty well ("the carter III" was a good old fashioned success, selling one million copies in its first week). but the industry has already past its very own "hubbert's peak"; it's tough to imagine a future in which record sales would trend upward. when the distribution mechanism implodes, the industry fails. simple as that.

did james taylor give the best pop performance of the year, or was it the eagles? neil young, eddie vedder, bruce springsteen, paul mccartney, and john mayer should probably be thrown into some sort of battle royale, but instead they're all nominated for "best solo rock vocal performance". are the voters so astoundingly tasteless that they'd actually reward kid rock for his crap-epic "rock and roll jesus"? what size sunglasses will kanye west wear?

hard to think of anyone who cares. the world has bigger fish to fry at the moment. fish such as: edgerin james is the fucking key. if he can average more than 4 per carry, pitsburgh's secondary will open up just enough for kurt warner to CHRIST his way to the hall of fame.

major labels and indie labels and why they're the same fucking thing

2009-01-30T09:40:00.002-06:00

want to see something funny? read this.

it's a badass article about how badass the fleet foxes guy is because he's squashing a rumor that his stupid crappy band is signing with virgin. he says, "Fleet Foxes will never, ever, under no circumstances, from now until the world chokes on gas fumes, sign to a major label. This includes all subsidiaries or permutations thereunder. Till we die." pretty bold.

why not major labels? "I just don't see the point. Most major labels seem anti-music." pretty firm. it lacks an attention to detail that many arguments possess, but who am i to pick nits?

at the beginning of the article, pitchfork newsman Tom Breihan talks about how many records they've sold. 180,000 by early january, 211,000 to date. these are pretty impressive figures for an "indie" record, especially one put out by a guy who so vehemently opposes the chokehold that major record labels have on the music business.

trouble is... subpop, the "indie" label to which fleet foxes are signed, is owned (49%) by warner music. if you'll recall my previous post whining about fleet foxes, you'll recall that warner music is a subsidiary of raytheon industries, one of the largest weapons manufacturers we've got.

so an indie band, signed to an indie label, owned my a major label, owned by a weapons manufacturer, won't sign to a major label "until the world chokes on gas fumes." this fucking country.

incidentally, why is it ok to go on saturday night live but not ok to sign to a major label? could it be because robin pecknold is an idiot?

fleet foxes ----> SNL

2009-01-16T12:31:00.001-06:00

a good many years ago, godspeed you! black emperor put this on the back of their album 'yanqui uxo'.

the flow chart shows that every major record label is a subsidiary of a weapons manufacturer. they were roundly mocked for being naive. the point they were trying to make wasn't that military contractors are force-feeding us pro-war music in a nefarious effort to accomplish... something. the point was, simply, that major record labels are amoral, joined at the hip to an industry of mass death; companies have no values, and as a musician, you can do better than to let them be the ones who feed you.

this is "naive" because survival is the ethic of any musician, and only in movies do people turn away money because of principle. cut to present day:

fleet foxes, the hottest shit in the universe for the moment, will be performing on saturday night live this weekend. usually it takes a while for a "cool" band to end up on SNL. (modest mouse weren't allowed on until they wrote "float on".) even more usually, saturday night live's stage plays host to ashlee simpson, justin timberlake, perhaps mudvayne.

last winter, vampire weekend played SNL mere months after their album was released. now it's fleet foxes' turn. NBC is owned by GE, the third largest military contractor in the history of the world. what's my point?

bringing it back to godspeed, they would never be invited to play saturday night live, nor would they be likely to accept such an invitation, were it ever to be extended. is this because they are better people? no. it's because they are better artists.

if GE doesn't mind pimping your music, you're probably playing something the suburban dads of this country can get behind. i, for one, believe this means you suck, out of hand. fleet foxes suck. vampire weekend sucks. (glad i got that out there)

when i was working in a record store in san francisco, we had one section called "indie" and another called "rock". a co-worker tried to move vampire weekend from the former to the latter, since the promotions blitz our employer was engaging in cast serious doubt on the independence of vampire weekend's operation. (story continues in next paragraph)

did you know that record labels send assholes around to record stores in order to make sure that their shit is being pushed with appropriate enthusiasm? they do. it turns out, vampire weekend was in the "indie" section because of a financial arrangement between my record store and their distributors. ain't that a kick in the teeth?

long story short, "indie" bands who get put on saturday night live to promote their debut record are not "indie". they are "corporate", like "christina" aguilera.

something on the internet has bothered me

2009-01-09T14:02:00.001-06:00

these days, your average pitchfork review ends with a link to the relevant group(s) myspace page. it's nice of them to do this. for instance, a band called "lemonade" has just had their self-titled (debut?) record reviewed. the album gets an 8.3 and is "[recommended]". aside from saying that one song goes on too long, there isn't a single negative word about the record, which must make that song pretty fucking long.

but i digress (frequently). what's important is: it's another douchebag indie dance record. after my last post, in which i asked what's so damn special about yet another kind of electronic folk/pop, the experience of listening to lemonade's myspace songs presents an almost spooky parallel. another group of white kids makes another record that recalls the eighties. the songs aren't terrible. to me, though, they aren't even particularly memorable. i've heard so many fucking indie dance records that i can no longer tell one from the other.

noentheless, pitchfork sees lots that i don't. it would seem that the songs are "rife with rhythmic density and intensity." the band employs a "muscular, aggressive approach to dance music." one song has "a pounding 4/4 beat that would go over both in Williamsburg warehouse parties and Dubai super clubs." (does the spectrum you've just been given leave you any hints as to which social class is being marketed to?)

my point, again, is: so the fuck what? they've rejuvinated 80's dance music? again??? but -- WHY?

if what you want is an enless march of "muscular, aggressive" dance music "rife with rhythmic density," [DENSITY?] you've certainly had your desires met in the last decade. you were a pig in shit in '04. but for the rest of us (those of us who don't see the point in rehashing genres that have already been resurrected, co-opted, and pastiched all over again), these cracker-ass indie dance bands are getting rather tiresome.

what's the appeal? why does this shit continue sticking to the wall? i have a theory.

reviewer sez: "As the [final] track fades, it's overcome by a chorus of sampled voices all uttering the same statement: 'we're all having a good time.' Given Clendenin's cryptic, fragmented approach to singing, you can't fault Lemonade for using these dying seconds to state the obvious." after hearing the song in question, the line is clearly an ostentatious attempt at irony, which seems to be entirely lost on the critic. regardless, this is what music means to these people. they want their bands to have a good time, they want to be reminded of good times they temselves had in high school, they want simply to forget that the last twenty years even happened.

what better way to escape the desolate creative landscape that corporate media has fashioned for this american generation? the critic wants to hear that record that reminds him of his first blowjob -- a simpler time, before critics and the internet destroyed american cool music with their solipsism.

still fussin

2009-01-05T13:47:00.000-06:00

been a while. anybody there? perfect.

animal collective has a new album coming out, and i've just today had the opportunity to read a review a full two weeks before i can buy the cd in a store. talk about anointed! (PITCHFORK: the day after your winter break, you reviewed an album that isn't out yet, some label's 25th aniversary box set, the current project of some beta band refugees, an "english indie-dance trio", and ludacris. what the fuck? the only unfamiliar band is another fucking indie-dance trio. why does pitchfork hate our freedom?)

but look, i wanted to rant about the animal collective review before i had a chance to hear the album, which i'm confident will be at least passable. that's not the point. i wanted to examine the praise it received, in isolation. this is a dumb thing to do, but nobody's reading, so you know.

to start, animal collective get praise for the "open-ended ideas about what their music might 'mean.'" i don't know why "mean" gets its own quotation marks; it could signify a number of things that render the sentence "meaningless". more importantly, though, the open-ended meaning thing is great for critics, who can write eight full paragraphs (a relative epic in the pitchfork decade) about why this album is the tits.

moving on, "Since their inception, Animal Collective have wandered the territorial edges of music, scoping out where boundaries had been erected and looking beyond them." check it: "looking beyond them". as in, "oh hey, what a great view we have from this boundary. that stuff out there sure looks interesting."

at the end of paragraph two, the bomb is dropped. the album is "the result of all their explorations pieced together to create something accessible and complete." accessible and complete. complete and accessible. these words are telltale signs that you're truly tickling the critics aural prostate. but what on earth does "accessible" mean? it allows you to access it? like a museum? other music is inaccessible? like an underwater cave?

an early nominee for turn-of-phrase-of-2009: panda bear is praised for his "his fuzzy, head-in-the-clouds dreaminess." if that isn't the perfect embodiment of everything pitchfork's thrown at me for as long as i can remember, i don't know what is.

on and on... "a towering edifice of sound"... "from one chanted melodic nugget to the next before building to a huge swirl of psychedelic sound"... "ego-pulverizing bliss of shoegaze"... "brings to mind altered states and the confusing gap between the familiar and the strange" [confusing to whom, sir?]... "the words seem like a running commentary on the essential mystery of being alive". hubba hubba!

look, animal collective's not so bad. they've had their moments, and even an album or two. but jesus christ, i'm sick of this shit: "What they've constructed here is a new kind of electronic pop." well bully for them, but how many new kinds of electronic pop do we need? it's like buying shampoo at duane reade. WHY ARE THERE 800 DIFFERENT KINDS OF SHAMPOO!?

good to be back.

TVontheRadio - Dear Science

2008-10-30T17:52:00.003-05:00

Feel free to browse metacritic for the reviews. Also go to their myspace page (www.myspace.com/tvontheradio) to listen to the entire record. It's all there!

This album is boring. I've given it around six listens all the way through. Tried headphones of differing quality, car speakers, laptop speakers, and home speakers. The record seemed to work the best on bikerides for me, as the lack of dynamics is suited to a ride with lots of outside noise. That said, the lack of dynamics make this record a boring experience for sitting down and listening.

The way in which the record sounds is what bothers me most. What struck me initially and still holds true is the fact that the album has two distinct realms: the vocal, and the instrumental. The organic vs. the inorganic. This could be an interesting thing to work with through the album, but no great revelation came to me (this is not a record that is interested in recording). Many of the tracks have a Main Melody Line (doubled or not) that appears to the listener as One Take. Then there are various overdubs that jump in and out of the mix willy-nilly. The overdubs are panned in awkward places and are especially apparent when wearing headphones . It has the appearance of laziness in arrangement. There is a lack of emotional impact to the vocals as well. The instrumental tracks lack dynamic subtly, and so when the vocalists got passionate, I felt uncomfortable, like there was an awkward friend doing karaoke at a bar and getting a little too into it. The instruments were never allowed to breathe with the vocalists, thus making the voices sound ridiculous and the instruments like a moving brick wall.

Arrangement: Most of the songs have programmed drums, guitar, bass, keyboards, various electronics (?), strings, horns, female vocals (appearing randomly at the end of the record in duet). Oh my, the drums bug the hell out of me. Very basic and could potentially be made interesting, but they come across more like a click-track than anything. All of the instruments sound like they're trying their hardest to be exactly on the beat and playing at exactly the same volume level throughout. It sounds careful, not tight. Each instrument also appears to be mixed in isolation. When the horns come into the mix a quarter of the way through the album, it does not sound exciting or new. The horns sound like close-miked horns. The strings sound like close-miked strings. The electric guitars sound like close-miked electric guitars. The drums sound like presets (save a few tracks, where they sound actually interesting "Halfway Home" (the toms) or "DMZ" where they sound like REAL drums). All of these super clean instruments sound too matter-of-fact and appear stale and lifeless. The electric guitars chug along to finish two or three of the tracks on "Dear Science" in a way that sounds glib and redundant. There is no interesting NOISE to the sounds on the record, so to prolong outros and such made my attention wander to places elsewhere.

The songwriting! To me, boring! Nursery rhyme melodies! Simple forms! This is pop, rock, and electronica. There is nothing avant about the way in which sounds are arranged. In fact I agree with the reviewer from Pitchfork who talked about TVOTR's live performances and how these songs could be made more interesting in a live setting. I agree. Strip away the redundant and unnecessary overdubs and streamline the arrangements. Then rehearse a lot with the band. And make sure to use a real drummer. Bam. "Powerful" "pop/rock" musc. This record isn't bad, it just sounds like well-polished demos.

Take That, Magma!

2008-10-10T12:34:00.004-05:00

This is simply put one of the most overwrought, tangled and verbose reviews ever.

"This bizarre and unique jazz-rock has sci-fi trappings."

As you tell, my sarcasm is thick today. Thank you Allmusic guide, for once again reinforcing the idea that any review is better than no review.

Brilliant.

Slowly. Slowly. Take it All In.

2008-08-01T15:53:00.005-05:00

This drumset is 308 pieces. 308. Three hundred and eight. Separate. Drums.

I've had my share of drum-related pant tents, but good god does this inspire the ultimate rager. There is simply no way in holy hell that a drummer could properly play on this set. Mostly, I imagine a lot of desperate flailing, and many attempts at the longest descending-note tom fill. Ever.

I mean, let's give you a little perspective. Here's Terry Bozzio's kit:

This drum kit pushed the limits of time and space for me already. Count the foot pedals: 15 can be assumed (some of them are blocked by 1 of 22 toms in his set-up). This kit can be played but only Bozzio or perhaps Keith Moon on adderol. Maybe.

But 308 pieces?! I wanted to delve further into this urban legend, so I of course checked Youtube. You are not going to believe what I found.

DO YOU BELIEVE?! DO YOU! That, dear friends, is a drum boner. Flaming helmet indeed!

PPPPPRRRRRRRRROOOOOGGGGGGGGGG

2008-07-29T11:23:00.001-05:00

Swell Maps - Jane in Occupied Europe

2008-07-28T10:31:00.003-05:00

Here is my abridged review of this amazing experimental pop record. It won't win any awards, but I simply wrote it while listening, so the whole thing only took me about forty five minutes. Allmusic has a two sentence review. I'm pretty sure I have more than two sentences. Point being, I hope someone stumbles onto this while looking for reviews, and can actually read about how it sounds.

Robot Factory - cranking and whirring buzzes, and a ghostly organ drones away in the background, unsure if it accepts the clanging percussion. Epic enters on bass and snare, tight and crisp, as the chaos of the off-kilter percussion envelops him. About a minute later...

A huge bass and drum hook up leads into a messy, strange organ and vocal led romp, with Epic pounding out a nice-Beefheartian backwards drumbeat. Huge build-up leads to an amazing saxophone break played by Jowe Head. "Border Country" is a standard guitar-led track that wouldn't sound out of place on Nirvana's Bleach. Dissonant, but glaringly catchy. Intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-instrumental bridge-verse-chorus-out. You don't get a standard structure from Swell Maps too often, but they pull it off fantastically.

"Cake Shop Girl" is a guitar and synth-led track, rather catchy if not for Jowe Head's low, mumbled vocal. It sounds like it came out about five years too early, and the same could be applied to the rest of the record. One can see how Jowe hooked up with Television Personalities' Dan Treacy later on in their careers, what with the synth lead and pop sensibilities.

"Helicopter Skies" is a barn-stormer, the sound of guitars cranked up as loud as fucking possible. Another pretty standard song, but the insane volume, four on the floor beat, and the lead guitar creaking and swooping around the background create a song rife with tension. Always a fan of great outtros, the boys start to break down to quieter state as Epic plugs along on his crashes.

"Big Maz in the Desert" and "Big Empty Fields" are the true jumping off points in this record. Structure is abandoned for pulse and texture. The drums and bass in "Big Maz..." shutter along in a clumsy Krautrock groove, as the rest of the band seemingly leaves their guitars against their amps to feed back, pianos are bludgeoned, and percussion of course is thrown around the room. The bass drops out, the drums lighten up, and the boom! the bombast continues until you're in the fetal position with your headphones on. "Big Empty Fields," on the other hand, is crafted in chaotic subtlety. Again, a bass and drum hook-up pins the song down, while guitar harmonics and lonely sax create an alien landscape.

You know, I love crazy noise music. I do! But what follows the smooth and calculated improvisations is "Mining Villages," which is literally the sound of someone smashing typewriter keys while another person makes silly noises for about a minute. Stereo-damaging nonsense. Quintessential Swell Maps.

"Collision with a Frogman" is yet another drum/bass instrumental, with dissonant James Bond guitar fragmenting out until the song is bathed in flange and falls apart completely, revealing a new track "...Vs the Mangrove Delta Plan," an improvisation that comes deliriously close to boring the hell out of me.

"Secret Island" comes exactly when it's most needed. A classic rock/pop structure is a welcome respite from the noise hailstorms I've weathered, and the song is freaking great. Can't make out any of the lyrics, but that's never the point with the Maps.

"Whatever Happens Next" besides being the band's status quo, is a militant drone with thick gauzy fuzz guitar and group vocals. It's the sound of a band stuck in a loop, and the tension involved in that song is unmistakable.

If you want to know what it's like to ride a flaming chariot down Route 95 blind-folded, "Blenheim Shots" will take you there chariot-free. An absolutely blazing two-chord riff is pushed to the brink the moment the song begins, with Nikki Sudden's words stumbling and breaking over the verse, suddenly overtaken by a organ-led chorus, only to have the verse consume all before it.

I really like this song. I mean, Desert Island favorite style. The lyrics finish up, complete with Nikki saying, "OK, stop," as the song continues to blaze around him, but the musicians take no note. They build to furious climax, as a strange piano pattern starts to emerge out of the mix, eventually overtaking "Blenheim Shots." "A Raincoats Room" ends the album with stark beauty, the sound of 4 out-of tune pianos hammering out the same descending chord triads.

Raincoats - Ody Shape

2008-07-25T12:04:00.003-05:00

It came about 3 days ago, and I've listened to it about ten times, so let's get down to the nitty gritty.

As a whole, the album is a beautiful mess, with three rules of structure musically speaking:

1. The music follows the words. As explained in the re-issue's liner notes, Gina Birch states they wrote most of the music in the absence of a drummer, so a metered beat occurs occasionally. In fact, most of the record abandons harmonic and rhythmic convention entirely, sometimes in the middle of a song. The effect is incredibly jarring. Unlike punk groups like The Clash, Sex Pistols, or even Wire, the band was wildly experimental. Birch again: "I think we always took punk philosophy very seriously and we rejected the traditional forms of rock music, that in fact most bands ultimately didn't reject." This is not sneering, sarcastic, clothespin and leather punk. This is music being ripped apart from the seams.

2. Instruments switch roles. The bass could be the lead instrument in a song. And then cello and violin. Suddenly a kalimba enters the fray. You get the picture.

3. Destroy all expectations. Listen freely and sit back, because this album is a fucking journey.

The album opens with the solemn "Shouting Out Loud," a bass-led piece that features This Heat's Charles Hayward playing a rickety percussion pattern auto-panned left to right with subtle interjections from an electric guitar and pizzicato violin. Although spare, the arrangement is rife with tension.The lyrics concern a wounded female contemplating her life/love. This will be a constant theme throughout.

"Family Treet" is as dense as they come on "Odyshape," with a mournful piano creating the harmonic boundaries. A bowed bass, violin, and breath-taking whispery vocals create a shimmering, constantly-shifting landscape, as the band moves from a plodding 4/4 to an antsy 5/4. The tempo shifts are chaotic, as some instruments shift before others, and melody lines seem to place emphasis more on texture than anything else.

My personal favorite "Only Loved at Night" follows, a song that respects a steady meter a little better than most. A shrill descending electric guitar line holds down the verse, with a glorious melody sung by Ana and harmonized by a huge bass guitar that almost over-takes the rest of the recording. It's when the chorus hits that I'm swept away. What sounds like a washboard and bells are struck in an eighth note pattern, as a lone kalimba picks out a stark melody. Ana intones, "Boys love her at night, girls love her in the dark," and goddamn I have to meet this girl.

"Dancing in My Head" is more free, as the instruments follow Gina's words concerning the battle between the spiritual and physical. Resembling a German lied, the song is a perversely "standard" tune compared to the rest of the lot. Former PIL drummer Richard Dudanski lends a hand on an assortment of percussion, a role he would eventually take as a full-time drummer on "Kitchen Tapes" and "Moving".

Another gem, "Odyshape," emerges in a cloud of digital delay. The dueling electric guitars and even Hayward's booming, clattering drums bounce and shimmer, as the women sing of the female image in modern culture, statements that still ring true.

I'm not glamorous
or polished in fact
I'm no ornament
it could be my bodyshape
I wonder if I'll ever look right

The guitar/drum combo sway back and forth, teetering on the brink, a microcosm of the album as a whole. Just an amazing song that pulls you in.

"And Then It's OK" and "Red Shoes" both rely on natural pulse and feel rather then conventional rhythm, with infamous experimentalist and Writemare favorite Robert Wyatt providing percussion flourishes. "Baby Song" song is almost funky, driven primarily by Hayward's stalwart drumming and a direct-recorded guitar. The closer, "Go Away," is an angry plea for isolation. Screams of chaos meet with a physical and confrontational arrangement that ends with a bombastic swell of violin shrieks.

Took me freaking half an hour tops to provide this fan-boy narrative of a record review. Hope this gives people a better idea of what this album sounds like, instead of a completely useless three sentence fart that simply reinforces the album's existence.

You Almost Have To Feel Bad For Black Kids

2008-07-22T09:48:00.004-05:00

So, let's say you're one of the Black Kids.

You're from Jacksonville, Florida, which already sucks. I mean, ok, I guess you might get to see NFL bust Matt Jones walking around all white and beardy, but otherwise, gross. But anyway, you and your friends form a band, self-release a mediocre EP, and within minutes you're officially the Next Big Thing, as evidenced by constant, drooling coverage from NME and Pitchfork and the like.

So, you get a record deal, and you put out a record. And then THIS happens:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/51246-black-kids-partie-traumatic

Yeah...those guys who loved you and hyped you up and pretty much guaranteed good things from you? They won't even deign to write a SINGLE SENTENCE about your record. Because, meh, sorry, didn't you know Fleet Foxes are the tits now?

And what does that "sorry" imply, anyway? "Sorry, readers, that we kept talking about this shitty band for 6 months and now have to admit that they're shitty"? Or "Sorry, Black Kids, but your check didn't clear"?

Or is it just a simple declarative statement: "This is some sorry, sorry shit."

Upcoming Scrawls

2008-07-17T11:44:00.003-05:00

This week will try and touch on the following records:

The Raincoats - Odyshape

It's coming in the mail right now, and a review will be quick and painless, something to erase bad memories from one's tainted mind

La Dusseldorf- Viva!

Klaus Dinger, he of the staple motorik drumbeat, unveils his krautrock masterwork on my ears. The world explodes.

Hawkwind - Space Ritual

Lemmy on bass, proto-punk riffing, saxophone orgies, terrible cosmic poetry. It's gonna be awezome.

Rolling Stones - Emotional Rescue

Oft-forgotten weird Stones album. The title track is really weird. That's all I got right now.

Swell Maps - Jane From Occupied Europe

A travesty of an album review by allmusic leads me to review and then submit said review to allmusic. Will it be rejected? Most likely. Ah well.

Talking to Old Friends (Odyshape)

2008-06-30T13:15:00.007-05:00

Allmusicguide.com, for all of its amazing content, falls short sometimes. Here's another example of a completely glossed over review that describes not a single note of music. As soon as I get a copy to listen to, I'll write a allmusicguide-style review that I'll submit to them. Perhaps they'll enjoy an actual review compared to this lame synopsis:

"It was the late Kurt Cobain (with some help from labelmates Sonic Youth) who initiated Geffen's reissue of the Raincoats' catalog. And listening to Odyshape, it's easy to see why Cobain loved them so."

A little background info, not bad. Also, members of Sonic Youth were among those (not just Cobain) who pushed for the re-releases. Also, the second sentence is completely unnecessary.

"There's an emotional directness about these songs that hooks you from the start. Mostly you hear about emotions and situations, sometimes indirectly, almost as if you are eavesdropping on a conversation. Then it hits you: it's almost like you're talking to old friends."

I've heard live versions of these songs, and I agree with him. But what about the music? Is it messy or tight? Did you know that This Heat drummer Charles Hayward plays drums througout the album? That Robert Wyatt makes an appearance? I mean, these are notable items that would attract many listeners to said record. Why not go into any kind of detail here?

Instead, we get a half-baked "talking to old friends" statement that belongs in a Eagles review. Also of note, the final three sentences scream, "COP OUT!" like no review I've seen in a while. Completely lazy.

"That's the way the Raincoats' music works: it's deceptively simple, but extremely complicated. Also, as on this record, it makes demands of the listener."

So, how does the music work? It's both simple AND complicated? I understand the concept, but WHERE in the Raincoat's album Odyshape, lies the truth in your statement? Again, the second sentence is redundancy realized, a classic "what in the hay bale does the second sentence truly represent?" kind of thing. I feel like I am once again compelled to read the liner notes.

"But songs like "Red Shoes" and "Dancing in My Head" say this far more eloquently."

OK, thanks. We get two song titles, not a single lyrical reference point, not a single musical reference point, outside of the fact that one should be prepared for a challenging music experience that contains simple and complicated parts. Oh yeah, and the songs sound like old friends.

And that's it. As far as I can tell, there are no drums, guitar, bass or instruments of any kind on the album. I have no idea what the band sounds like. For a band whose sound is shambling and epic, and then suddenly stilted and primitive, any kind of explanation for what the listener can expect would be nice.

Furthermore, I accept any criticism, but any commenter who believes that Allmusicguide should be free of critique "because there is soooooo much music to review" should ask themselves a question: Since when is quality less valuable than quantity? Should any one source lower their standards just to pat themselves on the back for having the most reviews?

Getting Sick Nasty

2008-06-27T11:15:00.003-05:00

Best way to start the day: How about a drum lesson from the 9/8 Satanic beatsmith himself, Professor Phil Fucking Collins?

Freaking yes!

This Heat - Deceit

2008-06-25T15:34:00.004-05:00

Although much hallowed already, I'll take a gentle stab into Deceit.

Charles Hayward, drums, voice, tapes, says this of the two albums:

"The way that we explained it to ourselves was the first one[This Heat 1] was the dread, the fear unspoken, unrationalized. The second [Deceit] was the fear slightly more rationalized. The dread and fear thing was this whole (nuclear) mutually-assured-destruction thing that was happening at the time. We all thought that we were going to die in about two, three years. We really did."

After listening back to these albums a second time, I can understand what he's talking about (although whether or not the albums were meant to be conceptual is up in the air). One thing's for sure, the band was more focused and indeed song-oriented this time around.

That's not to say that radical experimentation takes a backseat. "Sleep" opens the album with piano tape loops, both looped and live percussion, and and a choir of ragged voices. The vocal harmonies are most notable for Charles Bullen's(guitar, tapes, bass, keyboards, vox) deep bass, usually singing a full octave below Hayward's and Gareth William's tenor and baritone ranges. Most of the harmonies move in parallels instead of Beatles-style triads, which create a very heavy and almost menacing feel that permeates the record. Hayward's singing is barely that, as he prefers to deliver his words with atonal shrieks and primal howls. He saves the rage for future tracks though, and

Each song has its own unique structure. "Sleep" is very simple, hypnotic as the title implies. They follow this strange beauty with one of the most abrasive, aggressive and downright brilliant slices of post-punk I've ever heard. "Paper Hats" opens with a circularly-picked detuned guitar and corresponding tom to hi-hat syncopations, with quiet lyrical questions exploding into a storm of screams and splash cymbals. As the song builds to a climax, a hailstorm of taped effects rings out over a rollicking beat as the guitars hew away frantically, giving way to what some consider the birth of post-rock. The final 3 minutes are dedicated to a muted A flat power chord resolving to an E in a time signature that I still can't count, but have learned how to play. The hi-hat is the center, as it's eighth note open/close pattern is endless. The kick drum only hooks up with the E in the guitar at the end of each phrase, to give extra emphasis to the shift in time signature. The snare is used for color, and behind this strange rhythmic muscle (no bass guitar in the entire song!) echoed and distorted tape effects radiate and shift constantly until you realize that the tapes are a room-recording of the band playing the same section slower, so as to cause a phase out as the song fades to nothing.

And that's just one song. Shades of Henry Cow, Can, Faust, and Soft Machine in just over 6 minutes.

"SPQR" is a bass-less barn-storming classic, as a four-on-the-floor drum approach bereft of the snare drum is augmented by complex cymbal polyrhythms and a guitar approach that sounds like Bullen won't be content until he saws off every last string. It's a frantic piece that also features a saxophone, dub effects and fine mixing with lyrics that reveal, "We're all Romans, we know all about, straight roads, every straight road leads home, home to Rome." Just an unbelievable lyrical idea, delivered with battering ferocity under the guise of a simple rock song. This is followed by my personal favorite "Cenotaph."

If anything defines angular sound, it is the first few bars of "Cenotaph." Again, Hayward's constantly pulsing hi-hat and pitched up snare lead the way, as a guitar and bass pick single notes against each other seemingly at random. Only until the section is repeated do you recognize the method to the madness, as every last note is repeated in sequence. The group vocals are in fine form, with no fluff harmonies, only octaves and parallel fifths. The lyrics are breathtaking, describing a post-nuclear war and resigning to this horrible inevitability, "History, history, repeats itself," making sure it's beaten into the listener's skull. The song's jagged guitar work and wandering bassline collapse after a strange bridge (including directly recorded guitar?), eventually succumbing to a ghostly saxophone planing on a forgotten riff as the band is overtaken by a delay and reverb effects.

The second side of the album is unflinchingly bleak, which is saying a lot. "Shrinkwrap" is "Sleep's" obnoxious ADD-riddled little brother, with a constant, "You lie you lie, you lie" vocal tape loop hammering away in the background. "Radio Prague" is the one near-miss on the album, a literal taping of radio with someone working the faders, giving way to the hardcore/hard rock/prog of "Makeshift Swahili." A tad more traditional than the other cuts, the band slices funk up with drone, as Hayward howls his way to an epic primal-screaming conclusion. Here's a live version (warning: this performance is insane).

"Independence" is a beautiful curio, combining crisply recorded acoustic guitar, a flute organ, what sounds like a live flute, and drums with a liberal re-interpretation of our nation's Declaration of Independence. Strange and dark, the song gives way to the epic "A New Kind of Water," which somehow maintains an air of optimism amidst the doom-laden imagery and howling guitars. The true power of the track lies in the bass and drums, hooking up for some of the most powerful interplay put on magnetic tape.

As quickly as it begins, the record is over with "Hi Baku Sho (Suffer Bomb Disease)," a sparse instrumental held up with harmonium variations, looped and distorted voice and other found sounds.

An insane step forward for a band who just one year previous had only fleetingly attempted to write "songs," Deceit is a document of late 70's fear and paranoia. We all joke about the Cold War now, but the fear was real, and Dr. Strangelove scenarios had been accepted as truths. Although representing an era almost 40 years in our past, Deceit is ageless, a truly innovative work that bobs and weaves its way out of conventional pigeonholing until today, when Mark E. Smith's words ring true:

The experimental is the new conventional

Music Rec

2008-06-21T18:30:00.003-05:00

Hooray for new format! I am a terrible writer, thus I have no balls to critique critics. Music recommendation for the week:

This Heat - This Heat

This is from '79? Or thereabouts. (Thank god I don't have to write a review of this). There are three contributers to the record. We hear them function as a unit of guitar, 'boards, and drums, but they're all multi-instrumentalists. I make note of this because it was strangely apparent, even on the most studioriffic tracks that some aspect of performance was occurring. I'm getting ahead of myself.

This record is exactly what I've been looking for for the past two years. Ever since I fell in love with compositional technique from the second half of the 20th century I've been searching for a record that presents like-minded material. That wasn't my only criteria, though, as I wanted a RECORD. I didn't want some poorly recorded live performance by a group of faceless instrumentalists, written by some out-of-touch pansy, and delivered to me via an orchestra - the tonal equivalent of the 8-bit generation of videogame consoles (hardcore, yes, but unable to deliver my idea of gameplay). I wanted a record and This Heat delivered.

"Testcard" opens the record. 47 seconds of a quietly recorded high-pitched synthetic drone. Sounds like a combination of modified sine waves with radio interference. This is such a typical way to open a work, but because it's so short, it comes across as inconsequential. After such an abstract opening, This Heat hit us hard with second track "Horizontal Hold." This song introduces us to the band. It begins with a room mic on them, the drums playing fast in 4 but being felt in a groovy 2; guitar quickly strumming some mid-range distorted cluster; while the keyboard lurches a bass groove highlighting M7th and octave leaps. Typical punks! But after only a handful of repetitions of the groove, the listener is suddenly taken out of the recording room and is presented with an abstract landscape of percussion. Everything is now close-micced (miced? neither look right). We hear the click and clack of the drums and guitar, while the keyboard continues the up and down motion of the previous chunk, only now stretched out with an extreme low chord followed by a lower midrange one. This continues for just a short bit before the band explodes into a section that highlights the tonal expanse that the band can take up. The guitar plays a searing lead riff, the drums making clear use of the crash while providing a stomping rhythm, while the keyboard presents more frequency-filling sine waves. This is all juxtaposed with utter silence. Classic. And yet so poignant!

I won't go on to describe the rest of the song, as I just wanted to talk about enough of the music to display an attention to detail of composition and construction. In order to convey the performative aspect of the material presented, they played with mic-placement in a way that allowed for them to do something as abstract as close-micing (and thus placing the instruments on an abstract plane to be delivered through the speakers and understood within the listening room) and still convey the SUCKERPUNCH of what a fucking tight band they are. As I said earlier, there are some rather abstractly recorded moments, but because of the way they present their awareness of micing issues, one never loses that visceral feeling. And that, to me, is totally awesome.

In order to keep this recommendation from being striaght-up analysis, I'll be briefer and more excited for the rest.

There is singing on four of the tracks. Perfectly executed! There's a wonderful balance in the way they move from instrumentals to songs with vocals without any break in the continuity. It's amazing! Speaking of continuity: although "Horizontal Hold" is all about rhythm with pitch-content kept to a scant dissonance, This Heat do not hold back from lyricism and display a keen sense of memorable lines (even when they're being as clever as controlling pitch-content do we find that they never let their intellectualism of pitch choice get in the way of simple experience enjoyment). WOW! They're amazing.

Did I mention that (since this was released as an LP originally) the A side is the same aesthetic experience as the B side? Rhythmic openers ("Horizontal Hold" and "24 Hour Loop"), followed by unmoored keyboard drones which ease into a songy moment ("Not Waving" and "Diet of Worms"/"Music of Escaping Gas"), etc. I'll let you put together the rest! It's fun! And that seemingly inconsequential opening "Testcard" becomes something immensely powerful and spine-chilling when it returns to close the record (the context is BRILLIANT!).

I like this record. It is experimental, yes, but everything is brilliantly executed and there is NO FAT on this record, as every moment lasts just as long as it needs. This Heat made a record that I love. And these last few weeks with it have been so much happier for it. So get it, k?

Scott Walker - Scott 4

2008-06-20T12:40:00.006-05:00

I picked this album up at half.com, a nice subsidiary of eBay for the monetarily challenged.

Known for his hit with hilariously-named outfit the Walker Brothers (none of them were brothers, Scott was the only Walker, they were British, he was American) "The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore," Walker has the kind of voice that could quiet a room with one note. A deep, full baritone that is bereft of any strain or exertion, Walker's strange, dark poetry breathes better with less instrumental frills.

Music

Much contention lies in what makes a song "a song." I hate putting this shit into quotations, which should tell you what side of the fence I stubbornly root myself to. Walker's songs range from the traditional Soul verse/chorus style ("Get Behind Me", "Duchess"), to almost German Lied style ("Boy Child", "Angels of Ashes") bereft of any shift in structure. Walker extends himself further into country("Rhymes of Goodbye"), the poignant closer that goes from clumsy slide guitar verse to a soaring chorus. Although unfocused at times, you can feel Walker's confidence in every chord.

Walker's previous solo ventures were stuffed with echo-chambered strings and over-wraught arrangements. On 4 he manages to reign in the fluff, maintaining a tempermental balance between stripped down folk rock (acoustic guitars, bass, drums) and the 60's pop bombast of a string ensemble aided with backing vocals and church organ. Tracks like "Hero of the War" exemplify this approach to a T. The drums hammer out a Bo Diddley riff on the floor tom, eventually punctuated with a tambourine backbeat. The guitars ignore simple chords and drone on open shapes, lacking any real definition besides holding up the harmonic base of the piece. The string arrangement consists of small ensemble of violin and viola, whose swelling charts are doctored with a vintage phase effect.

Let me be honest in saying no great boundaries were broken (Walker saved that for 1995's avant-rock Tilt, but that's another review), but his mastery of 60's songwriting and his progression to linear song-writing make this a more than rewarding listen.

Words

Besides clunker "Seventh Seal", Walker draws from a dark palette to construct his lyrics. Songs about Josef Stalin seemingly coming to back from the dead, cryptic passages evoking mythical creatures and dead cities, and most importantly, lyrics that were overwhelmingly melancholy, but not in a "hey, i'm sad, look at me crying" way. The darkness of the words pervert the sweetness of the arrangements to create a constant, sizzling tension that Walker channels into his delivery. My favorite lyric, from the second track "On Your Own Again", is a study of impact. The song is sung in past tense, as Walker laments a break-up. But the final line takes the listener back to the beginning, in which he imparts the bizarre feeling of ecstacy one feels at the start of a relationship:

Except when it began
I was so happy I didn't feel like
me

I broke up the lyric as the final verse dictates. The music slows and pauses, as apprehensive as the singer, evoking the exact rush of confusion and happiness the lyric expresses. Instead of saying he's no longer sad, he describes his happiness as an entirely alien emotion. Awesome.

There is, however, one stiff. "Seventh Seal" is exactly as it reads, a synopsis of Ingmar Bergman's film of the same name. Lyrically, it does what it's assigned, but I'm not that geeked out over that film (Wild Strawberries, now that's a different story). Musically, it's just an R'n'B beat with assorted percussion. Compositionally, the only moment of interest is the incredily awkward key change halfway through, which is so glaringly obvious that it defeats itself.

While shrouded in Spector-like orchestrations, the album has aged decently. The re-release includes a booklet of photos and lyrics, with no David Fricke bio or anything. I like Scott Walker for this very reason; he giveth, and he taketh away.

A Refresher

2008-06-19T17:21:00.000-05:00

After taking a brief hiatus to ponder the true direction of this blog, I've come to some conclusions.

a) unending vitriol is still funny, but instead of just railing on bad reviews, I think it's time we write new reviews for said terrible ones. That way something constructive comes of it all.

b) continue to point readers to Metacritic.com, possibly the best place to read about new records on the planet. Forget Rolling Stone, forget Pitchfork, Spin, this site collects them all and then averages out the total score. This is cool. And fun. So instead of telling people to avoid certain sites, I'll just funnel your asses to this one. Believe!

c) giant drumsets are still the bee's knees. Read that point again. The BEE's freaking KNEES. Some things will change. Tommy Lee rotating inside a sphere of drums will not.

d) if my fellow contributors will not contribute, then contribute they will not. Don't worry reader(s), that's not a threat meant for you. Namely, all my friends who never post are goners. Besides mattie.

e) I don't care who you're associated with. You could be Greil Marcus for all I care. If you write something awful, we will pounce. But take note that I failed grammar in high school, so I ain't exactly the bee's knees.

f) Recommendations. If I can get anyone on this blog to fricking contribute, there will be 5 album recommendations a week, from now to eternity. These albums could be old, new, out-of-print, or all of the above somehow. We like these records, but not because we have a shady deal with some investors. Music's great, right? Right?

All right, I'll shut up and post this thing. No pictures or anything, I promi...

Alex Henderson Strikes Again!

2008-04-22T23:16:00.000-05:00

Ahem:

When conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly attacked Ludacris' explicit lyrics on The O'Reilly Factor in 2002, he inadvertently did the Atlanta-based MC an enormous favor. Ludacris was already huge, but by making him out to be the forbidden fruit, O'Reilly inspired even more people to buy his CDs. Sex and violence sell, and rappers who are quick to offer cheap thrills -- Ludacris, Eminem, Lil' Kim, 50 Cent, among many others -- will have an easier time selling albums than the alternative rappers who are big on delayed gratification. But delayed gratification doesn't mean no gratification at all -- only that listeners need to be patient, which is the best way to approach an alterna-rap disc like Celestial Clockwork. Columbus, OH, rapper Illogic doesn't go for cheap thrills or the quick fix on this 2004 release. He doesn't scream the "n-word" at the top of his lungs every 30 seconds; he doesn't use the phrase "bitches and hoes" constantly or brag out about sleeping with countless groupies. Illogic is one of rap's intellectuals, and the heritage that he brings to the table -- influences like De La Soul, Q-Tip, and Common -- makes for a more nuanced, lyrically complex hip-hop experience. Illogic thrives on jazzy beats, and like a lot of the jazz recordings that have influenced his alterna-rap, Celestial Clockwork doesn't favor immediacy. But for those who are patient, gratification eventually comes. Illogic can be overly self-indulgent at times; that's another thing he has in common with many jazz artists. Illogic's self-indulgence sometimes gets the better of him -- much like a John Coltrane solo that was memorable even though it lasted ten minutes more than it needed to. But because Illogic's creativity is at such a high level, one can live with his excesses -- and more often than not, Celestial Clockwork paints a favorable (if imperfect) picture of the Midwestern alterna-rapper.

Woof.

We are High Class Lit

2008-04-04T12:18:00.000-05:00

Yeah, man, we don't give a crap about anyone's shit. Just like this guy.

For the record, demanding that allmusicguide.com changes some of its more horrendous reviews is not that outrageous of an idea. I mean, one sentence reviews that sum up an artists career? You really want those things to stick around?

This isn't nitpicking, we are in it to win it so to speak. We would like the artist and listener to benefit from decent reviews, because as much as we'd like to deny it, it is tastemakers like pitchforkmedia, allmusicguide, Rolling Stone and Better Homes and Gardens that influence what we listen to.

So yeah, sorry you were annoyed by our "nitpicking." Although, when viewing this body of work, aren't you just nitpicking us? Doesn't feel very good when I turn it around on you, huh? Probably makes you feel like the opposite of this guy:

Proof that Allmusic subcontracts to high school kids

2008-03-27T14:48:00.000-05:00

I appreciate the difficulty allmusic.com faces in trying to compile reviews of everything ever, but are they really so desperate as to hire high school kids? Maybe. Let's see what L'il Alex Henderson has to say about the band Winters:

Some bands choose names that are quite misleading. That's fine if the band wants to be ironic (Barenaked Ladies, for example), but in some cases, bands come up with names based on what they think they sound like or wish they sounded like instead of what they actually sound like. Winters, however, is a band with a very appropriate name; Black Clouds in Twin Galaxies, their first full-length album, really does sound like a dark, cloudy, bleak winter day. This British outfit essentially falls into the doom metal category, and Black Clouds in Twin Galaxies maintains a dark, melancholy, pessimistic outlook. Of course, dark lyrics are to be expected in doom metal, which has been influenced by Black Sabbath more than any other band. Winters' sound owes a lot to Sabbath, but they have many other influences as well — and those influences range from British psychedelic bands of the '60s and '70s (Pink Floyd, Iron Butterfly, late-period Beatles) to Nirvana and the Melvins. Some have described this 41-minute CD (which is hard rocking but consistently melodic and never flat-out brutal) as stoner rock, which is slightly inaccurate. There is, to be sure, a very thin line between doom metal and stoner rock (both are totally obsessed with Sabbath), just as there can be a very thin line between soca and calypso, death metal and black metal, or zydeco and Cajun. Doom metal and stoner rock can easily overlap, but while doom wears its sadness like a badge of honor, stoner rock has more of a tripped-out, hippie-ish "let's party, dude" perspective — and Black Clouds in Twin Galaxies is much too sorrowful to be called party music. It is also a well-crafted and enjoyable outing from these British doom metallers.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that he's definitely yet defiantly wrong about this being doom metal...doesn't AMG employ an editor? Didn't someone read this and say "Thanks for the 7th grade book report on the roots of Doom Metal, but your review sucks"?

Well, I just did.

Believe

2008-03-18T21:48:00.000-05:00

This is how to do it

2008-03-17T10:46:00.000-05:00

Short, sweet, and to the point.

Weirdest Admission Ever

2008-03-11T15:01:00.000-05:00

Weird, straight from Pitchfork.

"Unclassifiable" is usually lazy shorthand for albums featuring both guitars and keyboards.

Hm...

So, this is pretty ridiculous. In reviewing Alopecia's new record, the critic lays down that slam dunk on his contemporaries. See below for the illustration of said action.

Andrea Varejao(the critic) is demolishing Chris Bosh(the critic's contemporaries).

Is this a sign of things to come? Are people actually willing to write lucid, analytical pieces that honor and respect the music they are being paid to review? My mind is melting as I try to comprehend the gravity of such an occurence...