Musicological banter

Yada wrote:

atomic wrote:

Yada wrote:

K8teebug wrote:

Yada wrote:

kosmo wrote:
Rock Music is truly dead…  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 

Was Matt and Kim ever considered "rock" music? What a bunch of wusses.

Matt and Kim is one of the most annoying acts I've ever seen.  Saw them at freefest because I was sitting in the front waiting for Pavement and LCD, and they were just heinous.  Do.not.get.

I bet atomic loves Matt and Kim.

Of course, I do.  What's not to love.  High energy and great songs.   Pavement on the other hand were incredibly boring.  I left during their set. 

What is funny about that.  Everyone I was with felt the same way.  They were all in their 20's.  Maybe it is an age thing.

HAHAHAH.

What is funny about that.  Everyone I was with felt the same way.  They were all in their 20's.  Maybe it is an age thing.

The new Cactus Channel is basically one of the best hard hitting funk/soul records I've heard of late… it's streaming for the next couple of days here

http://themusic.com.au/listen/all/2013/08/26/exclusive-the-cactus-channel-wooden-boy

http://blbrd.co/1dXV45L

So much awesome here!
Great headline.
Interesting and promising idea.
Nice sneaky Diarrhea Planet reference.
Great to see Emily killing it at Billboard.

Someone has solved current problem of lack of Aphex Twin appearances, this should help bearman, sweetcell, etc move on to liking Miley Cyrus.  I expect some Hey Seth's out of you all today ;)


5 Ways Miley Cyrus is inadvertently mimicking Aphex Twin

http://theinternetispoison.blogspot.com/2013/09/miley-cyrus-windowlicker.html

Woman gets conned trying to buy a festival ticket, then writes a song about the incident and names names. Video goes viral and get 10k+ worth of views. Ends up getting invited to play that festival. Lovely voice….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qVpVd__UuU

Thought this was an interesting post by Frank Turner on his own forum (forum.frank-turner.com)

Re: US Tour 2013

    ezeblazin wrote:I was at the Silver Spring show. Frank was great as always.. I'm just highly disappointed it was a 21+ show, there was no reason for that other than the stupid bud light sponsorship. Also upset that they were only allowed to sell bud light, bud light lime, bud light platinum and lime a ritas at the venue. They have a ton of other beers that are actually good and weren't able to sell them because of the sponsorship. I don't know why Frank would agree to that, although maybe he didn't know… I guess that's just what comes with being on a major label.

    Also, I'm wondering if the new song he had "never played before" is the same new song he played the last few nights… anyone know? I don't remember any of the lyrics other than the word Aphrodite.

Post by frank » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:02 pm
frank     Site Admin
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:47 pm
With regard to the Bud Light thing.. it's not something I'd usually do (because of the age limit thing, can't say I care that much about the beer branding, it doesn't affect what I do on stage). That said, in this instance they paid us a big fee for the show. Just before everyone calls me a sell out for that, the point is, it meant this tour was able to break even financially, and therefore to happen at all (and indeed to bring Ben Marwood out as well). So it wasn't perhaps the easiest decision, but I think the right one. Touring in the USA is still pretty fraught, financially, for me. Next time we're through it'll be all ages again.
———–
Shows? All of em. (this is his sig as most fans put the number of shows they have been to)

"He's like an Uncle, I like him but I don't want to listen to him all day."

Sidehatch wrote:
Re: US Tour 2013
    ezeblazin wrote:I was at the Silver Spring show.
With regard to the Bud Light thing… they paid us a big fee for the show.

I'm pretty certain this is the #1 reason he didn't play the 930 this tour.

Probably too early for 2014 threads, so…

Neil Finn said on twitter he has a album/tour scheduled for 2014

wow pitchfork gives the new pixies ep a 1.0….


what a  terrible review.. more about the reviewer than the music…

I havent heard it, but if the Bagboy song was any indication, i would assume it was horrible.  Some (like Swans) can make amazing music for years and decades and forever.  Not everyone is so inclined.  I will need to read the review later to see what you mean…

people read reviews?

People take said reviews of snarky musical outlets seriously?

hutch wrote:
wow pitchfork gives the new pixies ep a 1.0….


what a  terrible review.. more about the reviewer than the music…

Funny…as a longtime (and I mean really longtime) Pixies fan (I saw them twice before they broke up), I actually think the EP is really good and I'm enjoying it a lot. I am sort of sick of reviewers. I know they need to make a living too, but they probably need to go find a real job. And I say that as someone who used to write them. At a certain point, they don't really mean a damn thing. Sometimes they're run to read (the most fun I've ever had was trashing Bjork's "Drawing Restraint"), but that one was just dumb.

everyone knows the truth about people who write reviews.  everyone knows the truth about people who write journalism.

Yada wrote:
people read reviews?

People take said reviews of snarky musical outlets seriously?

well yah sometimes i read them for fun!..usually if something gets such an awful review which hardly talks about the music itself and instead tells us personal stories about the reviewer then i think "hey, must be good!"..in other words the review peaks my interest..




i am reminded of rolling stone's greil marcus and his review of self protrait which said something like "what is this shit?"… rolling stone just reviewed the new dylan bootleg series consisting of outtakes ..arguably outtakes of outtakes… from self portrait and calls it a masterpiece

self portrait is a great record reviewers be damned… and "dylan" (the real outtakes from self portrait) is even better..

another classic case of reviewers inserting their agenda into a review was the pitchfork people on liz phaiir's eponymous one which isn't that bad  a record…

the idea that black francis, joey and dave could make an ep deserving 1 out of 10 , to me, is laughable…

I generally like Matthew Yglesias but whenever he writes anything about music, he sounds clueless. Like here.

Apparently only young people go to shows and tapes are a "hilarious gag" now.

azaghal1981 wrote:
I generally like Matthew Yglesias but whenever he writes anything about music, he sounds clueless. Like here.

Apparently only young people go to shows and tapes are a "hilarious gag" now.

My christ… that dude is such a sanctimonious nozzle. He used to run in the same circle as an ex of mine nearly a decade ago and seems to get prickier by the years.

my favorite pitchfork review to read is the "oh shit these guys blew up and we didn't get any coverage on them?" 5.0

There are a few Pitchfork contributors who I think are pretty reliably good/always worth reading whether or not you agree with them and know how to write a well-crafted review. Ned Raggett, Marc Masters, Lindsay Zoladz, Laura Snapes and Liz/Jenn Pelly come to mind. This Body/Head review published today, for example. The scoring system is bullshit, though. It is not the individual reviewer who scores an album; scores are supposedly an average made up of the ratings given by a bunch of contributors. The scoring system should be done away with altogether and let the reviews speak for themselves.

azaghal1981 wrote:
There are a few Pitchfork contributors who I think are pretty reliably good/always worth reading whether or not you agree with them and know how to write a well-crafted review. Ned Raggett, Marc Masters, Lindsay Zoladz, Laura Snapes and Liz/Jenn Pelly come to mind. This Body/Head review published today, for example. The scoring system is bullshit, though. It is not the individual reviewer who scores an album; scores are supposedly an average made up of the ratings given by a bunch of contributors. The scoring system should be done away with altogether and let the reviews speak for themselves.

I really think they base the score not one whit on the music..its just based on what is cool and hip and what isn't..i wouldn't be surprised if they tell the reviewer what the score is ahead of time…. is a band on the upslope? have they become too big? if so, they trash the band no matter what…. its a joke…so many bands on pitchfork they lovethem the first album or two and then they backlash them no matter how good what they put out is….

Pitchfork just sucks.