Is Robert Christgau the worst, most overblown popular music critic in existence?

[SpectralJulian]

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/rs/sonicyouth-07.php

 

The reason that SY and other bands in the 80's were annoyed by Christgau had more to do with the bands not liking him, not him not liking the bands.

 

Apparently Christgau classified {censored} Galore, Big Black, The Butthole Surfers, and Sonic Youth under the label "pig{censored}er" because of the dissonant aggressive sounds. That pissed off Sonic Youth.

[pbone]

Well I think there is a distinct difference between being hipster and being hip. It all really goes down to the old argument of which bands are punk and which bands are poseurs. Generally I draw the difference at how the band approaches music. It is about corporate exploitation of the underground that in the 90s was known as indie rock, in the 80s as alternative or hardcore in some circles, in the 70s was known as punk, and in the 60s was known as garage, and in the 50's was known as rock and roll. When Modest Mouse went major they completely fell into the world of corporate exploitation of subculture. Adding Johnny Marr totally solidifies that. Major labels and some indie labels care about targeting audiences, and IMO that is what really kills music in my opinion, and why MTV is the devil. As far as I can tell Xiu Xiu and Melt Banana are both bands that work on the principle of Ars Gratia Artis. And it translates in their music.

 

Being that indie labels are what they are, I think they are less focused on appealing to people and more focused on selling CDs. It is true though that they have a demographic.

 

Less we forget, The Clash were on a major record label, and The Moon And Antarctica (their best album) was released on a major record label as well.

[SpectralJulian]

Also to me the word "hipster" has a negative connotation.

 

Similarly the 60's counterculture despised the word hippie.

 

In both cases the subcultural movement suddenly became in fashion and cool.

 

Who's in it for the fashion and who's in it for art and philosophy is always arguable.

[SpectralJulian]

Being that indie labels are what they are, I think they are less focused on appealing to people and more focused on selling CDs. It is true though that they have a demographic. Less we forget, The Clash were on a major record label, and The Moon And Antarctica (their best album) was released on a major record label as well.

 

The Moon and Antarctica was good, but I think I like the Lonesome and Crowded West a little better. Maybe after the Moon and Antarctica came out the A + R guys were upset that it didn't sell very much and asked them to make more marketable music. I don't know. All I do know is they started to majorly suck when Good News came out.

 

Also, labels are all different. Some indie labels are worse than major labels. And not all contracts are equal. Some bands are on a major label on a good contract just to give a label cred. Sonic Youth on Geffen.

[Urinate Forever]

ooohhh a thread about music elitists. nice. I used to be totally into arguing that kinda {censored} but then I got bored with huge ass posts.

 

Bottom line is that Pitchfork kinda blows nuts. Kinda became what it started out to go against. I never read one good Pitchfork review. They gave John Frusciante's "Smile from the streets you hold" an F. HA@!!

[pbone]

ooohhh a thread about music elitists. nice. I used to be totally into arguing that kinda {censored} but then I got bored with huge ass posts. Bottom line is that Pitchfork kinda blows nuts. Kinda became what it started out to go against. I never read one good Pitchfork review. They gave John Frusciante's "Smile from the streets you hold" an F. HA@!!

 

DIFFERING OPINIONS GASP

[Urinate Forever]

DIFFERING OPINIONS GASP

 

Yeah, see, that's the problem with YOU though. You're the one who's getting all butthurt over someone saying that they disagree with an opinion. In my case, I just say that it flat out sucks. Does that mean I'm right? {censored} no. You can call me a dumbass and we'll have an argument. It'll consist of condescending remarks and tons of copping out. If you came into a thread about Nirvana and said they blew nuts and Nevermind was an incredibly overrated album I wouldn't get all pissy, I'd call you a retard and continue to pick apart your own musical taste to prove to myself as to why your opinion doesn't matter.

 

That's musical elitism 101. The old Nirvana forum I used to go to was the biggest hive of musical elitists on the face of the Earth, believe it or not. It doesn't sound plausible but the elitists don't talk about Nirvana, they talk about how Steve Reich and John Cage are awesome and how they wish Slint would come to North America or, if they wandered into the Nirvana portion of the site, they'd tell all the Nirvana noobs and kurdt-kids how they'll hate Nirvana in a year and realize how retarded they were. It only happens to about 5% of them. I don't know whether or not it was a good thing that it happened to me.

 

I don't go there anymore. That place sucks. A member on here goes there I think. Poppin' Fresh is his name on there and it's in the user's sig on here. I dunno the user though.

[SpectralJulian]

So let's make some more pronouncements: -Joy Division were {censored}, are {censored} and will always be {censored}. There is no more precious hipster band than Joy Division. It ticks all the right boxes: non-mainstream sound, non-mainstream singer but you know that there's many within their clan that don't actually like the albums. I can't stand their albums! I hated them when I was 16 some 14 years ago and my friends and I would meet up round each other's houses and play stacks of vinyl. {censored}, I should have liked them as I adored the Manic Street Preachers, especially the Holy Bible LP. But everything about Joy Division turned me off. Ian Curtis is much like T.S. Eliot to me in that their prose is moribund and people elevate them upwards purely because they sing of death and how useless life is etc etc. It's no different to the emo kids saying how 'emotional' the emo singer is, everything Bowers complained about in the reviews above. My own theory with Joy Division is that the music press decided that they needed to hype a new 'Old Icon'. Punk had been done to death, the Smiths revival was back in town so post-punk was the logical step. Death sells and so Curtis was ideal. Mark E Smith is a more important and vital contributor to the world of music than Ian Curtis ever was. So there.

 

I'd have to disagree with you there about Joy Division being {censored}e. I agree that they are over hyped because of the whole "suicidal singer in a gloomy sounding band kills himself" type deal (AKA the Kurt Cobain factor.) Also the movie Closer looks like a POS.

 

Instrumentally they are very appealing to me. Peter Hook is probably one of my favorite bassists. Ian Curtis's vocal deliver was very often detached sounding, which you don't get too much in music. The drumming and the guitar parts were also superb. What struck me more about their music was their sense of texture rather than their sense of darkness.

 

The first Joy Division song I've ever heard was Digital, and I've always loved that song and I feel that it is a very happy song.

[Urinate Forever]

I'd have to disagree with you there about Joy Division being {censored}e. I agree that they are over hyped because of the whole "suicidal singer in a gloomy sounding band kills himself" type deal (AKA the Kurt Cobain factor.) Also the movie Closer looks like a POS. Instrumentally they are very appealing to me. Peter Hook is probably one of my favorite bassists. Ian Curtis's vocal deliver was very often detached sounding, which you don't get too much in music. The drumming and the guitar parts were also superb. What struck me more about their music was their sense of texture rather than their sense of darkness. The first Joy Division song I've ever heard was Digital, and I've always loved that song and I feel that it is a very happy song.

 

Yeah, I dunno, Joy Division is definitely the ultimate hipster band but I dig them a lot. I pretty much find the hipster culture to be as funny as the scenesters but it's not like Joy Division is for tools and posers or anything.

[pbone]

Yeah, see, that's the problem with YOU though. You're the one who's getting all butthurt over someone saying that they disagree with an opinion. In my case, I just say that it flat out sucks. Does that mean I'm right? {censored} no. You can call me a dumbass and we'll have an argument. It'll consist of condescending remarks and tons of copping out. If you came into a thread about Nirvana and said they blew nuts and Nevermind was an incredibly overrated album I wouldn't get all pissy, I'd call you a retard and continue to pick apart your own musical taste to prove to myself as to why your opinion doesn't matter. That's musical elitism 101. The old Nirvana forum I used to go to was the biggest hive of musical elitists on the face of the Earth, believe it or not. It doesn't sound plausible but the elitists don't talk about Nirvana, they talk about how Steve Reich and John Cage are awesome and how they wish Slint would come to North America or, if they wandered into the Nirvana portion of the site, they'd tell all the Nirvana noobs and kurdt-kids how they'll hate Nirvana in a year and realize how retarded they were. It only happens to about 5% of them. I don't know whether or not it was a good thing that it happened to me. I don't go there anymore. That place sucks. A member on here goes there I think. Poppin' Fresh is his name on there and it's in the user's sig on here. I dunno the user though.

 

I was pointing out that because you think it inconceivable to give his album an F, that the whole website is inherently flawed/retarded. That's the impression I got. If you're saying something else, I apologize.

 

Dude, he wasn't disagreeing with an opinion. Disagreeing and condescending are, again, different things.

 

Fact is, I nor you need to defend our musical tastes, but I'm sick of people {censored}ting on other people for what kind of music they listen to, and not the music itself. Again, subjectivity.

[SpectralJulian]

Yeah, see, that's the problem with YOU though. You're the one who's getting all butthurt over someone saying that they disagree with an opinion. In my case, I just say that it flat out sucks. Does that mean I'm right? {censored} no. You can call me a dumbass and we'll have an argument. It'll consist of condescending remarks and tons of copping out. If you came into a thread about Nirvana and said they blew nuts and Nevermind was an incredibly overrated album I wouldn't get all pissy, I'd call you a retard and continue to pick apart your own musical taste to prove to myself as to why your opinion doesn't matter. That's musical elitism 101. The old Nirvana forum I used to go to was the biggest hive of musical elitists on the face of the Earth, believe it or not. It doesn't sound plausible but the elitists don't talk about Nirvana, they talk about how Steve Reich and John Cage are awesome and how they wish Slint would come to North America or, if they wandered into the Nirvana portion of the site, they'd tell all the Nirvana noobs and kurdt-kids how they'll hate Nirvana in a year and realize how retarded they were. It only happens to about 5% of them. I don't know whether or not it was a good thing that it happened to me. I don't go there anymore. That place sucks. A member on here goes there I think. Poppin' Fresh is his name on there and it's in the user's sig on here. I dunno the user though.

 

John Cage is awesome. And I do wish Slint would have played near me when they got back together.

 

I'll always respect Nirvana as the band that is partially responsible for me knowing about all the music I now love.

 

But I'd never rub a Cobaininite the wrong way, because when I was a long haired ripped flannel shirt over a stained t-shirt wearing teenager I was just like them and wanted a DS-1, a Jaguar, and a Marshall stack. And anyways Nirvana was a good band, even though they aren't as great as I once thought.

[Urinate Forever]

John Cage is awesome. And I do wish Slint would have played near me when they got back together. I'll always respect Nirvana as the band that is partially responsible for me knowing about all the music I now love. But I'd never rub a Cobaininite the wrong way, because when I was a long haired ripped flannel shirt over a stained t-shirt wearing teenager I was just like them and wanted a DS-1, a Jaguar, and a Marshall stack. And anyways Nirvana was a good band, even though they aren't as great as I once thought.

 

We're the same. Minus thinking John Cage is awesome. Dude's an asshole. 3:14 is not music no matter what anyone says. It's art, sure, but it's not {censored}ing music. Slint playing NA again would be awesome, fo sho. I'd be down to going to every show within 2 hours of here.

 

I still want a Jaguar though.. :embarrassed:

 

Nirvana is responsible for the music I listen to currently in 2 ways... One, I read Kurt's influences and checked them out and loved them and two, I was a troll on that Nirvana forum. They turned me onto good music as well as pissing me off at the same time.

[SpectralJulian]

Have you ever listened to Bacchanale? Absolutely wonderful piece of music by John Cage.

 

And it is 4'33"

 

Also listened to Paris off of "Piano and Voices" by John Cage and Meredith Monk. Absolutely beautiful classical composition.

[lonerstoenr]

Okay, {censored} you, and {censored} people like you. It's music. I'm sorry dude, but if you are actually going to judge the quality of a person on the kind of music that they listen to, then I really have nothing but contempt for you. Yeah, you and your music sit on a {censored}ing pedestal and condescend on the scum of the music community. "Hipsters" are frequently making more original music on a day to day basis than anyone else. The music scene has changed completely because of these "hipsters." How are hipsters, indie noobs, and "hipster music" not part of the "real music community?" What the {censored} is the real music community, anyways? Is that analogous to the world, perhaps? Because that would be like a certain type of people don't have rights or a "standing" in the world. Which is, of course, archaic thinking. Oh, boo, they're different. Get a life, asshole. {censored} you. Seriously, go away. I'm done with you.

 

1. It's not music, it's cleaverly disguised white noise manned by annoying fanboi's who have no idea on what basis to critisize music except what pitchfork tells them to listen to. Cause pitchfork is God.

 

2. "indie" and "hipster" genre's are the least original thing I have ever been forced to listen to, or experimented with, every band sounds almost identical at points. At least in metal theres 10000 sub genre's, at elast jazz has different eras, indie's just not original enough to have anything more than clean, slgithly out of tune guitars doing a lot of slides and boring whiny vocals.

 

3. The real music community are people that can accurately judge music for what it's worth, and are msuicians. I have yet to meet anyone i consider part of this community that doesn't frind hipster/indie music a complete waste of time musically. This applies equally from people I play in Orchestras with to guitar teachers, to the guy that runs the Bass store.

 

4. I don't mind them being different, when you have to put up with legions of society touting Radiohead as gods and people e-felating Sufjan Stevens with their own pathetic attempts at looking smart on the internet I'm going to call a spade a spade. Man up, delete that idea {censored} from your computer, break all those CD's, and get some real music (which is effectively any other genre other than hipster or indie)!

 

5. This thing called Neo'Folk is also not a genre, the only neo-folk worth listening to would be folk metal. Jonanna Newsom should give up music.

[m_Calavera]

Oh nicely done, OP, nicely done

 

[makingbeds]

loner stoenr,

 

as for point #2-are you serious about the sub genre thing? "indie" or "hipster" music can include, noise, drone, twee, shoegaze, folk, post punk, dance punk, etc.

 

It is the same with metal including doom, shred, etc...

 

#3-many "hipsters" are great musicians. see beirut, stars of the lid, battles, midlake. Most of the people in these bands are great songwriters, music theory buffs, or jazz musicians.

 

#4-Sufjan Stevens isn't "indie." I think you sort of don't know what indie is, and therefore have a bad view of it.

[cobalt-60]

Hey, while we're on this wonderful topic, I guess I'll throw in my two cents. The following of course are simply my opinions, but I firmly believe these opinions (b/c if I didn't, why the hell would I believe them, much less type them?)

 

For one, music can suck. Let's stop being hippie's for a second and just say some music is bull{censored}. If you have nothing emotionally, or musically to say, no interesting sounds, no hooks, no beat, no soul, no lyrics, no innovative theory, you suck. Now it doesn't have to be all those things, but if you don't have one of those, you suck and that all there is to it. Some people value some things more than others, but if you don't have any of these, you blow.

 

Also, this is hilarious...

 

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/your-band-sucks/metal.php

 

Second, yes, you can predict parts of a persons personality through their music. Is it set in stone, no, probable, yes. Although, it should be considered, you could also tell a lot about a person from just about anything, especially their trash.

 

Third, why do people get so serious about this {censored}? My theory is people need something to identify with, and if it isn't religion, and it isn't family, and it isn't nationality, it's gonna' be Nikes, iPods, and Autobots.

 

Well, I need to head to class.

 

Say you know what {censored}ing kills me? Hipsters/indie kids that don't own an album by *any* of the following - The Rolling Stones, VU, Bowie, Sonic Youth, Pixies, Can, Kraftwerk, Neu! and Massive Attack. But you get that with every genre, and what it means is, is that you don't really listen to music, you just like a certain beat or sound, and eat whatever's fed to you. You don't have any curiosity, and you're prejudiced for a variety of possible reasons. And that I guess bugs me, no, I don't expect eveyrone to be music experts, but I would like to think they want to learn, they want explore.

 

Of course you could just be into it for social reasons, which is just another layer of lameness.

 

Me, I like music that's any combination of fast, strange, honest, and/or fun and has interesting sounding instruments, mostly distorted guitars, spiney banjos, warm synths, frightening keys, screaming horns and long winding echoes while I dancing gleefully or just go to another place.

 

I wish I only liked one genre of music, it'd be a whole lot cheaper. It kills me that I have to import American music from Japan.

[lonerstoenr]

loner stoenr, as for point #2-are you serious about the sub genre thing? "indie" or "hipster" music can include, noise, drone, twee, shoegaze, folk, post punk, dance punk, etc. It is the same with metal including doom, shred, etc... #3-many "hipsters" are great musicians. see beirut, stars of the lid, battles, midlake. Most of the people in these bands are great songwriters, music theory buffs, or jazz musicians. #4-Sufjan Stevens isn't "indie." I think you sort of don't know what indie is, and therefore have a bad view of it.

 

Hipsters ejaculate of Stevens constantly, whether or not he is indie or not doesn't concern me, someone called him 'neo folk', thats a {censored} genre.

 

Your points are flawed, drone sucks hardcore so it's still indie and contains a lot of what I mentioned, namely annoying guitar line (when they occur) and boring vocals. Good drone (boris.the melvins being the only two that come to mind) is really just slightly slower doom/stoner, hence thats why we can call it good and interesting.

 

No hipsters are great musicians or songwriters period. Being a music theory buff, or playing in jazz bands will not equivilate you to being a good musician. I know a plethora of people in jazz bands and in orchestras even the most generous of people would hesitate calling them musicians.

 

Your points are null and void, hipster music is still terrible, those that listen to it ruin their owns lives needlessly, Pitchfork is the biggest waste of storage space conceived and those that write for it do not deserve life.

 

Loner - 20

 

Indie noobs - -450,000

[Urinate Forever]

Have you ever listened to Bacchanale? Absolutely wonderful piece of music by John Cage. And it is 4'33" Also listened to Paris off of "Piano and Voices" by John Cage and Meredith Monk. Absolutely beautiful classical composition.

 

Word. I knew what I said wasn't right but I didn't feel like sourcing it. I've never really listened to anything of his but I was completely turned off after I read the story about 4'33''. He seems cool though. I don't want to support him though because of the controversy he, knowingly and willingly, created over that stupid piece of nothing. I doubt he really cared whether or not it was really music or not but only wanted to see people's reaction. Whatever he did, he did it right and for that I hate him. It was made so that people could call water dripping every 5.27 seconds and then having nothing but silence for another hour to be music.

 

I'm ranting and I doubt I'm making sense. I'll stop here.

[HeartfeltDawn]

Pbone, we debate with smiles on our faces and gin in our hearts. Well, I would if I had any gin. :poke:

 

 

Having a greater selection of music to choose from does give you more influences. It also gives you a greater range of things to rip off. There's a ton of bands out there who sound like they've heard a couple of tracks on a Tuesday by, say, Talking Heads, written a couple of demos influenced by them on the Thursday and Saturday they're being heralded as the next great thing. They are the hipster bands to me. Being British, we don't really have the same hipster thing as North America but three years living in Toronto introduced me to the hipster element and it was pretty pathetic. It's about the right clothes, the right name drops, the right clubs. A new band can form, be big in the city because their friends will all go but they never break it really big because they do suck. It was the same when I lived in London (see the whole New Cross thing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Cross#Culture). I know hipsters and yuppies are different things. The point I was trying to make is that, in my experience of both hipsters (socialising with them) and yuppies (socialising and working for and with them), both demographics feature a high percentage of people who are are consumers of music rather than really passionate lovers of it. Music is something to own, something to drink to, something to {censored} to, something to name drop. it isn't somethign that they really, really love, certainly not in the way it matters to you. That's fine, they can enjoy it that way. As I said earlier though, the problem comes when more and more bands aim for the consumers first, artistic and musical considerations second.

 

So does greater selection mean better quality? I say no. Dude, look at cable TV. Massive selection of channels but the majority of it is {censored}. Look at your revival programming, such as the recently screened remake of Knight Rider. Look at your local huge grocery store. Look in the aisle with the chips n' dips. All that {censored}ing selection yet can you say it's good? Universities in the UK have more courses than ever yet the general consensus is that educational standards are lower than 10 years ago. More people than ever could shoot films but the major companies are so {censored}ed for ideas that they're paying out left, right and centre for any and every major comic book franchise going (Kevin Smith should get them to shell out for the live action Mooby spectacular). In most walks of life, a greater selection doesn't lead to higher quality. I feel it's the same with music. more stuff to listen to, more bands out there, the mainstream takes some of them... but is the quality of the mainstream better? I agree with you that the breadth of music as a while has improved but my argument was centring more on the mainstream/left of centre aspect. The mainstream has narrowed considerably.

 

I grew up during the Britpop time. I had many arguments with Torontonians about the period. They regarded it as retro bull{censored}. Really? Britain had drum n' bass in the mainstream. Portishead, Massive Attack. Trip-hop. Tricky. Goldie. People like Nicolette got radio play. UK rap was coming up, really opening the way forward for Dizzee Rascal and what not. The indie scene was stupendously good. Sure, we had Oasis and Blur and Pulp and Supergrass and tons of fabulous pop acts. We also had Radiohead coming up. There was a lot of appreciation for the post-Nirvana wave of American bands too. The point I'm trying to make is that the mainstream/left of centre music in the mid 90s was a hell of a lot more progressive and diverse than the same equivalent now. I found it really {censored}ing sad when Bloc Party first started getting press. It felt like the media was shocked: 'Oh look! A guitar band with a black man singing! How odd!' It really did show how narrow-minded things were beginning to get and they still are that way now.

 

Simply, check the NME best album list for 2007:

 

http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/2007.htm

 

And then check the list for 1995:

 

http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/1995.html

 

I know which list looks more diverse to me.

 

 

Why should I be concerned about the mainstream? because I want wierd {censored} in the mainstream. I have no problem with pop. I have no problem with Britney. I dream of a time when prime-time TV viewing isn't soaps and game shows and house improvement programmes. I dream of a time when it's all of those things plus well-produced independent documentaries, evening specials of opera performances, films made by small companies. I dream of a music channel that can play Britney Spears alongside Cornelius. I want people to produce club electronica. I want there to be bad metal out there. I want there to be emo. We see all of this in the mainstream. It's the bits we don't see that worry me because a) the mainstream is contracting in terms of its range of music and b) I do think more and more bands are going for style first, content later.

 

Now some random points of debate:

 

 

WHAT THE {censored} IS INNOVATIVE ABOUT KLAXONS?!? Answer: nothing.

 

Yeasayer aren't a hipster band for me because they're low-key over here in the UK. Their record was one of my records of 2007. The level of sonic creativity there is way greater than any number of sub-Joy Division impersonating bastards (incidentally, the Person Pitch LP by Panda Bear was my record of the year). Daft Punk aren't hipster because they've been around for {censored}ing ages. Belle & Sebastian? No {censored}ing way! Vampire Weekend are simply vile though. Maybe they're hipsters. Maybe. I've listened to a fair amount of their stuff and it leaves me utterly cold. It's hard for me to get over the thoughts of 'Wow, dudes doing {censored}ty versions of Paul SImon in his Graceland period. Damn they're innovative".

 

Has it changed for the better? I think so. You see more intelligent musicians, finding their way around their instrument, using other instruments, taking whatever is around them to make music--I think that is the essence of the evolution of music creation.

 

The rise of technology and the ease with which one can create a track means you don't need a great understanding of music to produce some fairly sophisticated sounding stuff. The problem with that is that you can't then go the extra mile. For example, using Cubase with a decent orchestral samples programme, you could rig up a convincing string section but the person without that extra musical knowledge couldn't add all the subtle elements to it that someone with the knowledge could. You could have any number of music tech students who could find their way around Pro Tools yet who would be utterly screwed with a mandolin. In this forum, you could have a guy using Virtual Guitarist to produce some tracks that would fool most people but a good guitarist could hear the missing elements that come with a human performance, all those subtleties.

 

Instruments that are easier to use don't necessarily mean more innovative music. You can take the retraction of the dance scene as proof of that. Technology is better than it was 15 years ago but house tracks of the time still have a freshness to them that dance tracks from now do not have. Acid house came about by people pushing their gear to the limits. Gear doesn't get pushed now because it's constantly upgrading. Innovation really comes when gear is pushed to the max in my opinion.

 

Mr Spectral, I don't know why Joy Division never took me in. I agree with you on Peter Hook, his bass playing is great. When they had their highs, like Atmosphere for instance, they could produce some great stuff. Looking over their entire output though, it's really patchy. The drumming's OK but the drumming on Marquee Moon is better and a lot more interesting. The guitars are good but there's any number of more interesting sounds. The singer... maybe it is just him. Even on Atmosphere, there are moments when the sound of Curtis makes me wince.

 

Closer is indeed a POS. It's too clean. It's a media guy's idea of what Northern Britain was like. I can only hope Anton Corbijn goes on to make a Smiths biopic

 

Oh, I also hate New Order even more than Joy Division!

 

Well I think there is a distinct difference between being hipster and being hip. It all really goes down to the old argument of which bands are punk and which bands are poseurs.

 

The guys who are hip never know it or use it. The hipsters will.

 

 

Part of the fun with Kid A is that they put the sounds OVER the lyrics. It's something REM did with Murmur, keep the vocals low. Best Radiohead album out there.

[SpectralJulian]

What's your definition of indie Loner?

 

All indie means is independent label.

 

Everyone's definition varies.

[arcadesonfire]

Third, why do people get so serious about this {censored}? My theory is people need something to identify with, and if it isn't religion, and it isn't family, and it isn't nationality, it's gonna' be Nikes, iPods, and Autobots. Well, I need to head to class.

 

I agree. People need to identify with something, and that's why i think it's very important that people understand that just because person A else doesn't identify with whatever person B identifies with doesn't mean that person A should condescend person B. With music, it's not such a big deal, but when it comes to religion, morals, economics, government etc. people are far too quick to try to eliminate what they don't identify with when instead they should first try to understand why so many other people do identify with it.

 

I read that last line as "We all need to go to class" because a large part of liberal arts education (at least the one i had) is teaching folks how to peacefully and constructively deal with differences between people and groups.

[SpectralJulian]

NME is just a tad pro Brit isn't it? Wowee Zowee and Red Medicine should be higher on that 1995 list.

 

I too feel that Closer was a pretty week album by Joy Division. I like the rawer sound of Unknown Pleasures better.

[SpectralJulian]

Haha, I just went to Pitchfork just to remind myself why I hate it so much, and there was actually something useful on it.

 

Apparently all of Mission of Burma's old albums are getting reissued and are going to include live performance DVDs with them. Yay.

 

 

But my hate for Pitchfork has more to do with their shoddy reviews and their reappropriation of mainstream musical artists like Justin Timberlake just for the sake of it.

[chu2]

Europeans invaded continents without feeling guilty because they couldn't relate to the culture of the people of the land... how awful is it to refuse to empathize with someone just because some aspect of their culture is different from your own.

 

So did American settlers in the West, my friend. There still are laws on the books from the past supporting the murdering of natives in a few states out there (of course ignored for the better today, like the "6 or more Indians together is considered a raiding party and it is legal to shoot them.").

 

Sorry for hijacking, I just get ticked when everyone points at Europe for the "command and conquer" attitude when it really occurs everywhere in history. Remember Atilla the Hun? Oh, and look up "Gnadenhutten" on Wikipedia. There's something you don't hear about in history books.

 

Alright, I'm done.