A Brief Fungasm

I have very limited access to the interwebertory these days, but I'd just like to remind all the 8 readers of this blog:

This website is based on the idea of criticizing criticism. Take things personally if you must, that's kind of the point.

If you find something you dislike about our criticisms of criticisms, critique us. Sometimes we'll criticize your critique of our critiques of someone's criticism, and other times we'll nod and say, "Oh yeah, solid point." Make us think twice the next time we hate on Interpol.





Never mind. Don't do that. Carlos D is a turd.

An Indie-ocracy of Dunces

so far, i've really enjoyed watching interpol's tumble from grace. from their stupid haircuts to their stupid suits to their stupid songs, i couldn't imagine a band that deserves it more. just five years ago, their debut LP (which, at best, showed some promise) was widely hailed as the best record of 2002, topping such brilliant efforts as max tundra's "mastered by guy at the exchange", deerhoof's "reveille", and the books' first masterpiece "thought for food". what was so freaking great about interpol circa "turn on the bright lights"? according to chris ott of pitchfork fame: "these kids are lording over cool with a laundry list of influences so artfully incorporated as to dislodge any memory of their comparatively slight precursor." as everyone knows, cool influences result only in good music and bands that survive the test of time. (also, after several months of liking their first album, mr. ott was ready to declare them better than joy division -- more on that later.)
then came "antics", one of the more oppressively mediocre albums in recent memory. tepid, forgetful and almost completely lacking any characteristics that might distinguish it from its predecessor (let alone from thousands of other indie records), "antics" epitomized the sophomore slump.
this summer saw the release of "our love to admire", interpol's first "major label" effort (for some reason matador still qualifies as "independent"). the critical response was predictably negative, mostly emphasizing how un-hip the album's more complicated arrangements and longer songs are. all of a sudden, stylus was describing their music as "rumbling minor chord meaninglessness." pitchfork was telling me that "the group indulges, and the songs often suffer."
how on earth did this happen? how did the band that had made new york city cool for a whole new generation of suburbanites suddenly become so bad, so self-indulgent? emerging conventional wisdom seems to be that signing to capitol records totally ruined their hipness, which sapped away their mad creativity skilz.
what's inadequate about this explanation is that it lacks perspective, choosing to focus on the band's current follies rather than examining their previous shortcomings. cool influences are not a substitute for ingenuity. in order to outlive your hype, it's not enough to be hip; you have to actually be talented.
this is why the glowing pitchfork quote above (where interpol were praised for their "laundry list" of "artfully incorporated" influences) actually predicts the band's downfall without knowing it. as a fashion statement, "turn on the bright lights" was right for its time; as a record, it was more or less completely devoid of originality (even those who loved the album conceded this point, opting to praise it as successfully derivative). that this band's music would become stale was entirely predictable; the speed at which it did reflects only how disinterested our indie press is in sticking by their favorite bands ever.
bertrand russell once wrote (long before the internet): "the belief that fashion alone should dominate opinion has great advantages. it makes thought unnecessary and puts the highest intelligence within the reach of everyone." thus, a group of musically illiterate twenty-somethings decreed an album that sounds exactly like joy division (which just happened to be the music they liked in high school) to be the greatest shit ever. hordes of indie kids bought it because they had just invented dancing, and needed something to go with their new idea (that liars album was already getting a bit old). college radio dj's pumped it until MTV got the message, at which point they had already moved on to the next big thing (clap your hands say yeah, the rapture, dfa 1979, etc., etc., etc.). it's almost as if a money-fueled hype machine were unilaterally deciding what college-aged white kids would like. the only thing more absurd is that said white kids continue to consider themselves the sole arbiters of good taste.
oh well. add interpol to the indie scrap-heap. i wonder what i should listen to this month.

Critics are Critics, Fans are Deranged

This has quickly become my favorite segments of Music Writemare. Metacritic.com has set up a list of reviews of the newer Interpol record Our Love to Admire. It was reviewed pretty well, if not lazily. And then the readers get to chime in, rating the album from 0-10. Let the fun consume you!

L P gave it a 10: Critics don't have a clue...that's why they're critics and not musicians. It's their best yet.

Nice LP, wait to stick it to the critics! And then give no explanation as to why it's the best. You must be a musician...

Yannis gave it a 9: Don't let the critics disappoint you. This is an album of great musical depth. Needs some listens to reveal all of its beauty, but then it turns into pure aural pleasure. The guitar work is haunting, the structure of the songs wisely designed. It lacks the spontaneity of "Antics", but then, make no mistake: this is not punk. I would say it is rock near the borders of classical and soundtrack music.

Once again, the critics are disparaged. I always encourage this mentality. And then Yannis tells us that the record is full of "haunting guitar work" and "wisely designed songs" which lack the spontaneity of the previous release. Why give it a 9 if it's not exciting, and sounds exactly like the other releases? Also, it's not punk. It's soundtrack music. That's not a good thing, Yannis.

elmo . gave it a 9: Our love to admire is epic start to finish. Less joy divison than the last two albums and has more to say aswell. Great one!

Awful. They never really sounded like Joy Division anyways. Paul Banks sings like a dead puppet, that's the only decent comparison. Also, horrible review elmo. Great one!

ben f gave it a 10: 3rd masterpiece in a row by the greatest band ever.

Terrible. I can easily list 10 bands that are better than Interpol. Rolling Stones, Joy Division, Beatles, Beach Boys, The Kinks, The Smiths, Radiohead, Bob Marley & the Wailers, Nirvana, The Pixies. That took me one minute. You suck.

Bob B gave it an 8: solid record. streets ahead of antics. indie wankers are full of excrement.

This is a confusing masterpiece. Bob B is truly the Hemingway of meta.critic users. His short, concise, almost heartless words paint a vivid picture. There is honesty here, a cold pop to the nose. The final sentence is a profoundly brilliant mess. I agree with him, indie wankers are indeed full of excrement. But who is he slandering, those who thoughtlessly enjoy the record because it's "indie-sounding", or the wankers who write snarky off-putting reviews only to cast doubt on said record? We'll never know. Bob B, you are sadistic bastard.

Daniel gave it a 10: Round, beautiful short-novel

I can't wait to listen to this round album. It will be awesomely corpulent!

Edward S. gave it a10:
This cd is fucking GREAT, screw all the critics, they like listening to queer shit! Viva Interpol!!!!!!!

Not really sure what to say. Viva Interpol? Interpol may be the least Latin American band in the history of rock and roll, besides the bass player named Carlos. Apparently, critics jam strictly to the Pet Shop Boys, Madonna, Kylie Minogue, Cher and Judas Priest. Thanks for the dirt on the critics, Edward S.

Brandon C. gave it an 8: I don't know what everyone is complaing about, it's an Interpol album. I think every review should just simply say "It sounds like an Interpol album." If you like Interpol you will like this CD. If you don't you won't. Duh.

Great spelling of "complaining", but this is a valid point. Mainly because it lends its agreement to my belief in expectation clouding critic's minds. So, thanks for than confirmation, Brandon, you make me feel self-satisfied.

Dave m. gave it an8:
It's at least an 8 just cause it's Interpol and that fact alone means it s**ts all over 95% of anything out there. Pitchfork are some haters - 6/10? Keep smoking.

Yeah, Pitchforkmedia.com, fuck you! Also, pass that shit that you're smoking. No one likes a bogart, you jonesers.

Sara B. gave it a 10:
A muscular, bipolar stomper of an album.

According to Sara B, this is how the album sounds:

Until next time, RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!