930 Forums

Musicological banter

azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 07, 2015 at 02:36 PM UTC #
I really love Tiny Mix Tapes.
Sidehatch
Joined: October 04, 2011 at 04:33 AM UTC
Posts: 25687
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 04:16 PM UTC #
always knew Fugazi was a Vietnam era term for f'd up
but never knew that it was an acronym for this… "Fucked Up, Got Ambushed, Zipped In [into a body bag]"

not from their first show, but a very early flyer

azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 04:32 PM UTC #
I knew FUBAR was "fucked up beyond all recognition" thanks to that Ken Burns WWII miniseries.
Sidehatch
Joined: October 04, 2011 at 04:33 AM UTC
Posts: 25687
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 04:50 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
I knew FUBAR was "fucked up beyond all recognition" thanks to that Ken Burns WWII miniseries.


I learned FUBAR from the roy scheider classic

jrpa
Joined: September 03, 2013 at 03:15 PM UTC
Posts: 29999
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 05:00 PM UTC #
I still think Son In Law in his seminal work.
jrpa
Joined: September 03, 2013 at 03:15 PM UTC
Posts: 29999
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 07:58 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
I said it'd be less than five years.

I welcome it. They were spectacularly fun to see. That show with Yacht at the 9:30 Club was amazing.
sweetcell
Joined: July 18, 2006 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 22608
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 08:07 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
I said it'd be less than five years.


if they reunite after april 2016, it will be more than 5 years… ;D
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 08:12 PM UTC #
Yeah that was fun.
Carlos wrote:
azaghal1981 wrote:
I said it'd be less than five years.

I welcome it. They were spectacularly fun to see. That show with Yacht at the 9:30 Club was amazing.
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 08, 2015 at 11:41 PM UTC #
TBH I showed up right before LCDSS went on.
beetsnotbeats
Joined: April 26, 2002 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5756
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 03:50 PM UTC #
Pitchfork goes Condé Nast
azaghal1981
Joined: June 17, 2004 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 12035
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 06:22 PM UTC #
The line in Condé Nast's press release about "passionate millennial males" can't be making Pitchfork's female writers (who have been responsible for its better content over the last few years) too happy.
jrpa
Joined: September 03, 2013 at 03:15 PM UTC
Posts: 29999
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 06:32 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
TBH I showed up right before LCDSS went on.

Yacht (it was just the main guy solo at that point) was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 06:54 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
"millennial males"


I love the paradox in their use of that phrase.  It's an acknowledgment that this business deal was driven by a desire to gain advertiser dollars looking to tap into a high spending demographic (and cross sell them into other CN publications).  While the average pitchfork reader understands that he is part of a massive demographic herd, he tries to bury that knowledge under his belief in his own indie-ness.  That CN would so ham-fistedly remind the readers that they are simply part of this large demographic mass shows that Conde Nast really doesn't know much about pitchfork.  But they do know how to listen to their consultants at McKinsey and this will likely turn out to be a very good acquisition (8.5).
Sidehatch
Joined: October 04, 2011 at 04:33 AM UTC
Posts: 25687
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:06 PM UTC #
azaghal1981 wrote:
The line in Condé Nast's press release about "passionate millennial males" can't be making Pitchfork's female writers (who have been responsible for its better content over the last few years) too happy.

they were referring to the audience, not the staff
Relaxer
Joined: October 15, 2001 at 05:01 AM UTC
Posts: 5410
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:11 PM UTC #
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.
ggw
Joined: December 16, 2001 at 06:01 AM UTC
Posts: 14237
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:17 PM UTC #
Relaxer wrote:
Plus I wonder to what extent "millennial males" even care about Pitchfork anymore. My impression is that most present-day readers of Pitchfork are 30-40, which is more Gen Y than millennial. Every generation has its "lol u old" media. My Gen X generation felt that way about Rolling Stone. Gen Y probably felt that way about Spin. And millennials look at Pitchfork and associate it with Radiohead and Animal Collective, which aren't exactly modern bands anymore.

I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.


Isn't "Millennial" just a re-branding of Gen Y?
Sidehatch
Joined: October 04, 2011 at 04:33 AM UTC
Posts: 25687
Re: Musicological banter October 13, 2015 at 07:21 PM UTC #
Relaxer wrote:
I'm pulling all of this outta my ass, by the way.

you're ass is pretty spot on though
although I was always a MMR/trouser press/Village Voice kinda guy
← Back to board