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...
Showing posts with label two-chord songs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label two-chord songs. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sunday, September 23, 2007
making sense is way difficult
"when a song has two chords, it's about asking a question in one line and then seeing if it can be answered in the next."
that's a line from mark richardson's most recent pitchfork column. for some reason, there's a series called "resonant frequency". what the title means, or what a column needs to be about in order to be a part of the "resonant frequency" club, is anybody's guess.
but i want to talk about the line above, inasmuch as it's possible to analyze anything so careless.
mark thinks that two-chord songs are cool. he thinks it's fun to have two things, one following another. this structure reminds him of a question being followed by an answer. he then writes that two-chord songs are "about" this structure. specifically, he seems to feel most excited by waiting to see if the question "can be answered".
clearly, it's going to be very difficult to understand what the hell he means by any of this, so let's skip that step. let's ponder these questions instead: 1) is this really what he likes about two-chord songs? 2) even in metaphors, how can he claim to know what a song's structure is "about"? 3) does it make any sense to say that a structure is "about" anything? 4) why would you even subject your readers to such banal and narcissistic musical analysis (the song reminds mark of "x", so "x" is what the song is about)?
for the record, i've been known to like some two-chord songs. like any other kind of song, some are good while others are bad. if you try to say anything general about them beyond "they all have two chords," you're probably going to stumble over your english degree and make an ass out of yourself.
ultimately, this is the type of thing an editor would send back with a big red box around it and a few question marks in the margins. the reason the editor didn't do this is because he doesn't exist, and spell-check is not really an adequate substitute.
i guess it's not really that important, because i did look at two (2) separate american apparel ads while reading the column. SUCCESS!!!!
that's a line from mark richardson's most recent pitchfork column. for some reason, there's a series called "resonant frequency". what the title means, or what a column needs to be about in order to be a part of the "resonant frequency" club, is anybody's guess.
but i want to talk about the line above, inasmuch as it's possible to analyze anything so careless.
mark thinks that two-chord songs are cool. he thinks it's fun to have two things, one following another. this structure reminds him of a question being followed by an answer. he then writes that two-chord songs are "about" this structure. specifically, he seems to feel most excited by waiting to see if the question "can be answered".
clearly, it's going to be very difficult to understand what the hell he means by any of this, so let's skip that step. let's ponder these questions instead: 1) is this really what he likes about two-chord songs? 2) even in metaphors, how can he claim to know what a song's structure is "about"? 3) does it make any sense to say that a structure is "about" anything? 4) why would you even subject your readers to such banal and narcissistic musical analysis (the song reminds mark of "x", so "x" is what the song is about)?
for the record, i've been known to like some two-chord songs. like any other kind of song, some are good while others are bad. if you try to say anything general about them beyond "they all have two chords," you're probably going to stumble over your english degree and make an ass out of yourself.
ultimately, this is the type of thing an editor would send back with a big red box around it and a few question marks in the margins. the reason the editor didn't do this is because he doesn't exist, and spell-check is not really an adequate substitute.
i guess it's not really that important, because i did look at two (2) separate american apparel ads while reading the column. SUCCESS!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)