From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V7 #533 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Tuesday, October 21 2008 Volume 07 : Number 533 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] wet blanket time [treesprite@earthlink.net] Re: [loud-fans] wet blanket time ["Matthew Weber" ] Re: [loud-fans] wet blanket time [treesprite@earthlink.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:37:11 -0400 (EDT) From: treesprite@earthlink.net Subject: [loud-fans] wet blanket time I always hate coming across as some grumpy hater, but there's a new column in Pitchfork that is seriously one of the worst pieces of music journalism i've ever read! Check this out: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/146569-column-resonant-frequency-61 What exactly is the writer accomplishing? In attempting to make some point about artists who are "thinking about their voices" (whatever that means) he's really just listed some singers he likes and vaguely explains why he likes them. I kind of get the idea that some singers, um, "do more" than other singers, but almost every singer he's listed (Juana Molina aside, perhaps) is really just, you know, singing. Any attempt to convince me that Bill Callahan is distinguishing himself as a vocalist is really just saying "the bar's really low and I like his singing better than another guy who doesn't seem to impress me as much with his singing." I'm not even responding from a taste perspective -- reagrdless of what I might think of these people as singers, the writer's just not accomplishing anything like making a case! It seems the like the kind of argument that would require a really technical perspective, a very strict set of rules or perhaps just an argument that should be had with some buddies at a bar. It's fun to have "who's your favorite..." conversations and arguments -- the arbitrary nature of "who's the best..." makes for great socializing. But to put something like that up on a high profile music site like Pitchfork? Did this strike anyone else as odd? not actually grumpy, Bradley www.byebyeblackbirds.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:17:43 -0700 From: "Matthew Weber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] wet blanket time It seems pretty par for the course for Pitchfork, from what I can see. They've always been plagued by indie ideologues, haven't they? It's unfortunate but true that for some people, just liking something isn't enough; they have to justify their reactions by inventing reasons why what *they* like is better than what anyone else likes. But hey, c'est la vie, and vive la difference, etc. On 10/20/08, treesprite@earthlink.net wrote: > > I always hate coming across as some grumpy hater, but there's a new column > in Pitchfork that is seriously one of the worst pieces of music journalism > i've ever read! Check this out: > > > http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/146569-column-resonant-frequency-61 > > What exactly is the writer accomplishing? In attempting to make some point > about artists who are "thinking about their voices" (whatever that means) > he's really just listed some singers he likes and vaguely explains why he > likes them. I kind of get the idea that some singers, um, "do more" than > other singers, but almost every singer he's listed (Juana Molina aside, > perhaps) is really just, you know, singing. Any attempt to convince me that > Bill Callahan is distinguishing himself as a vocalist is really just saying > "the bar's really low and I like his singing better than another guy who > doesn't seem to impress me as much with his singing." I'm not even > responding from a taste perspective -- reagrdless of what I might think of > these people as singers, the writer's just not accomplishing anything like > making a case! > It seems the like the kind of argument that would require a really > technical perspective, a very strict set of rules or perhaps just an > argument that should be had with some buddies at a bar. It's fun to have > "who's your favorite..." conversations and arguments -- the arbitrary nature > of "who's the best..." makes for great socializing. But to put something > like that up on a high profile music site like Pitchfork? > Did this strike anyone else as odd? > > not actually grumpy, > Bradley > > www.byebyeblackbirds.com > - -- Matt + Whatever a poet writes with enthusiasm and a divine inspiration is very fine. Democritus (c. 460-c. 400 B.C.), Fragment 18 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:31:17 -0400 (EDT) From: treesprite@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [loud-fans] wet blanket time >It's unfortunate but true that for some people, just liking something isn't >enough; they have to justify their reactions by inventing reasons why what >*they* like is better than what anyone else likes. But hey, c'est la vie, >and vive la difference, etc. I'm with you on that, but the failure of the piece isn't the content of his list so much as it is that there's no "why"! I'm not necessarily against the idea of justifying one's personal tastes in print, but you'd hope that a piece of writing would provide some kind of defined persepctive so that you could argue about whether the choices meet the author's criteria. It can be fun like that! But this article is really just "I like these singers because they sound like they're singing more than some other singers". Your point about indie-centricity is applicable, of course, because it inspires those classic Pitchfork gut responses like: "Have you actually heard Van Dyke Parks? Do you understand why an A-D-G song with three tons of strings and a banjo on it does not sound at all like Van Dyke Parks?" Since when did Parks replace Brian Wilson as the go-to name to drop in a review of an album with a ton of vaguely orchestral crap piled on top of it? Bradley www.byebyeblackbirds.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V7 #533 *******************************