up from the slums of shaolin

hey bitches. i'm back again after another hiatus again. thanks again to j-temp for having me.

i was going to write a big long year-end post about how lists R STOOPID, how lcd soundsystem sucks in a way that perfectly captures the idiocy of "indie" music fans, and how negative it is when critics foist their tastes upon lonely impressionable youths... but i never got around to it. i actually chose not to get around to it, because i realized that no matter how many years of awful lists go by, no matter how many times some bullshit record leaps to the front of a list because four critics love it, no matter how the specifics played out, the list itself is a COMMERCIAL exercise, which means they won't stop until people stop paying for music altogether (two years? three?).

when people complain about lists, they usually pick one or two, name a few records that shouldn't have been left off, and then generalize from those omissions until the writer settles on something that he can comfortably call a problem. but this method is silly. obviously readers won't agree with every item on every list. the issue is bigger than that. the project of whittling down every record released over a twelve month period into a list of 50 "essential" ones is hopeless. no amount of "expertise" can help a person accomplish this goal.

simply put, there is too much music. thousands of records slip beneath the collective critical radar. it would be impossible to listen to them all, foolish to try. unfortunately for critics, despite all of their analytical expertise, there just aren't enough days in the year. it hurts me, but i can't fault critics for this.

moving right along to what IS their fault, as soon as a group of these experts decides to compile a list of the "50 best" records of the year, they start lying about what their expertise is good for.

now, the fact that deerhoof's brilliant "friend opportunity" was exactly four worse than arcade fire's utterly embarrassing "neon bible", or the fact that bonnie "prince" billy's "the letting go" was inexplicably left off every 2006 best of list, the fact that the rapture outright sucks -- these sorts of things don't matter. specific injustices pale in comparison to the larger, more important injustice, which is that THOUSANDS OF RECORDS DON'T EVEN HAVE THE CANCE TO GET ON THESE LISTS, BECAUSE CRITICS HAVE NEVER HEARD THEM!!!!

of course, it's not an accident which records they don't hear. different groups of critics have different pools to choose from (which is why this list isn't the same as this list). important question: how are these pools settled upon, and who decides what gets left out?

i have a hunch the answer has to do with money and advertising (i.e. of course they were going to like the new animal collective album [released by domino records]; they'll like the next one too). i'm not making any specific payola accusations -- these schemes are more complex than record labels handing out bags of cash to quasi-intellectual under-sexed writers (if i'm wrong, i'd like my bag of cash now please now).

but this isn't about bribes. it's about interdependent business models doing what they need to in order to survive. as i hinted at above, there isn't much time left for the record industry. music is already free, and things don't become unfree -- unless of course demand outpaces supply, and anyone who's been to a record store in the last few years (anyone?) knows that isn't about to happen. this shit will not sell itself.

people just won't give their money to merge or matador without a little shove. and shoving people is, for the time being at least, a moderately profitable industry itself. neither business can survive without the other. and that is what these year-end lists are (except for the lists that are one voice's personal opinion, which are just narcissistic): a collaborative effort between record companies and record reviewers to keep their fledgling industries afloat for another few years.

kinda sad when you think about it.

The 3-Word Query (Clone Turds)

Five for Fighting, Against the Day, My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Plain White T's, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, !!!, Boy's Like Girls, A Fine Frenzy, the list goes on and on and on. See the trend?

Shatraw, the earthquake-proof member of Trawtopia.com proposed the following hypothesis:

"I have a theory. my theory is that NO band who has come forward in the 21st century and has a 3-word name is any good. care to explore this?"

He then gave me that list of bands you see at the top of the screen, plus I added a couple.

Discrepancy number one: Yeah Yeah Yeah's met and formed at Oberlin College in 2000, making them a pre-millennial three 3-word band.

I can't really say that any of your choices are wrong in terms of being horrible and 3-worded, but I can say there are a nation of 11 to 17 year olds in this old, crumbling nation who would disagree with us. These kids didn't grow up with Young Marble Giants, Rites of Spring, Husker Du, Sunny Day Real Estate, early Modest Mouse, basically the roots of Emo as we know them.

This Post-Millennial music, to a snobby 20-somethings trained ear cavity, sounds of an ill-informed collision of Green Day and Blink-182, with a touch of Sunny Day Real Estate. Any edge to the music is sawed off by The Industry. In fact, if you removed the vocals and just had the backing tracks going for some of these songs, you may have an issue distinguishing a single difference.

Two guitars + melodic bass + tight fast drumming + harmonized angsty vocals = $$$$$$$$

The industry believes in the following credo: If ain't broken, don't fix it.

And right now the shit machine will keep pumping out clone turds. Another fake scream-core band, another AC/DC rip-off, more fake-indie, although no one ever figured out what indie was (besides Robert Pollard, who declared it dead recently).

So, in my opinion, outside of Yeah Yeah Yeah's and !!!, most of the 3-Word bands are simply a product of history-ignorant bands combined with the hyper-controlling labels. These are bands of 17 and 18 year olds who are scooped up by major labels. They've probably been into music for two or three years and know how to play a couple of their favorite bubble-punk songs.

Record labels salivate over situations like this. A band that is competent but not sure enough of themselves to write or depend on original material. The band is simply happy to be there and playing shows that are set up for them. Their sound is crafted and controlled, streamlined for a better bottom line.

To give a ridiculous comparison, most of these fake 3-word bands are like a human body; the band is the vessel, the record label the true soul of the music. You are not hearing the band's true sound, but a neutered, auto-tuned bastard squall.

To Shatraw and myself, it's hard not to hear these bands without hearing the base derivative sound, the safe cleanliness, hell, just the plain suck of it all.

But as friend St. Dynamite pointed out in a three word response to the 3-Word Query: Stone Temple Pilots.

I loved those grungy motherfuckers in my tender youth. They were Led Zeppelin-lite as far as I was concerned. I remember when "Big Empty" appeared on The Crow Official Soundtrack. That song was the shit.

And then I remember that I was young and easily influenced once, and I remember the mission of this site. As much as I cherished the terrible music I used to listen to on KROCK, in hindsight I wish the experience was more pure. The children must be protected from the ever-scheming entertainment industry! People everywhere should be able to choose which emo they want to listen to!

Be vigilant, readers, and next time you hear My Chemical Romance, punch someone in the face. They'll thank you later.