Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And you would know this how?

It seems like gender-normal white men's lives are so weighed down by the double standards placed on them that it's become pretty much impossible to get through their lives without being accused of mur

that wasn't the only issue though. THe tone of the article, the reaction to finding out she was a transexual, the use of pronouns are pretty offensive to the trans community. Also, Transvestite, is no

Yeah, layout sucks and that Bill James thing wasn't even an article.This, however, was highly entertaining.
I hated that article, because it just reminded me of my terrible, in every possible way, day yesterday.****ing Giants and Patriots. Seriously?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, layout sucks and that Bill James thing wasn't even an article.This, however, was highly entertaining.
That was kind of fun (made somewhat more fun because it brought Brvhrt down at least a little), but also somewhat insufferable. Kind of like sitting next to a really loud table of overopinionated guys who get paid to write whatever passes for a thought, however half-baked. If I was one of the guys, though, that would be cool.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a better chance of people paying you not to share your opinions.
No comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i just found out hua hsu writes for grantland now, which is funny because he actually knows stuff about music unlike the rest of the chowderheads on that site who occasionally try to write about music aka klosterman. why or how this came to be i have no clue. maybe simmons is a closet hip hop head who subscribes to the wire?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I don't really read much of Klosterman's stuff, but is this the kind of piece that makes people hate him:http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/749032...rman-tune-yards
OK, I'll bite and become even more hated than before on these forums.I agree with Klosterman's take on this album and how he expresses it in his article. He LIKES the album and wants Tuneyards to succeed (I know, I know...that's NOT how you spell it), but he's also calling it out as a passing phase, something that won't stand the test of time. I listened to a couple of tracks and I would say that it's kind of cool and sounds interesting, but those aren't songs, so much as they are a pastiche of noise. If I want songs from 2011, I'll listen to Real Estate or Bon Iver, for example. The video for Real Live Flesh, as posted on YouTube, is silly, somewhat narcissitic and looks like a couple of stoned high school girls put it together, but maybe that's the point, which I don't get.There is nothing about the songs I heard that says "These will be great in a couple of years", if I ever got around to listening to the album again. Merrill Garbus is no St Vincent, but that's not to say this album shouldn't be liked, or even loved, right here, right now, to paraphrase one-hit wonder Jesus Jones.Klosterman isn't saying anything other than his own opinion and even guys who manage to get theirs in print are suspect and prone to huge mistakes. PS: I am looking forward to the Radiohead/Maroon 5 mash-up called Moves Like Yorke.
Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, I'll bite and become even more hated than before on these forums.I agree with Klosterman's take on this album and how he expresses it in his article. He LIKES the album and wants Tuneyards to succeed (I know, I know...that's NOT how you spell it), but he's also calling it out as a passing phase, something that won't stand the test of time.
I agree with both you and him. I'm not arguing that he's wrong because it's a great album. It's an album with some catchy songs that's pretty decent, and in a pretty weak music year, it's getting some accolades.The things I'm most bothered by are the tone of his article and the angle from which he approaches the music. The whole essay is basically him saying, "Meh, I didn't listen to these guys at first, but some people like them, so I HAD to listen to them, I guess... And then, what a surprise, they're okay, but not worthy of what people are saying about them..."He just works too hard at compartmentalizing music, trying to organize it and determine WHY it should be liked, or where it stands in time, or what it's derivative of, or whatever. It seems, at least through the character that comes through from his work, that he never actually sits down and enjoys music on it's own rights. Nothing exists as an independent work, it's all about what it sounds like and how people respond to it.Sometimes I'm bored at work or having a bad day and I listen to Bizzness and then I feel better. That's my review of Tune Yards.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with both you and him. I'm not arguing that he's wrong because it's a great album. It's an album with some catchy songs that's pretty decent, and in a pretty weak music year, it's getting some accolades.The things I'm most bothered by are the tone of his article and the angle from which he approaches the music. The whole essay is basically him saying, "Meh, I didn't listen to these guys at first, but some people like them, so I HAD to listen to them, I guess... And then, what a surprise, they're okay, but not worthy of what people are saying about them..."He just works too hard at compartmentalizing music, trying to organize it and determine WHY it should be liked, or where it stands in time, or what it's derivative of, or whatever. It seems, at least through the character that comes through from his work, that he never actually sits down and enjoys music on it's own rights. Nothing exists as an independent work, it's all about what it sounds like and how people respond to it.Sometimes I'm bored at work or having a bad day and I listen to Bizzness and then I feel better. That's my review of Tune Yards.
Yeah, I totally get you, post-elaboration. It's like he needs some kind of frame of reference in order to be able to make his decision, slot it into his idea of where it belongs. In some cases, this approach works, because some music is so referential to other artists and styles, but the same approach also eschews appreciation of the individualistic qualities of an album or song and, sometimes, that's the most important quality.It's equally important to be mindful that just because some people like it, it doesn't mean that a person should or have to like it also. Sure, it's great to find something you like via recommendation and it's sometimes tough to tell someone you didn't like what they like and Klosterman appears to be putting too much emphasis on that.Cheers, LLY, thanks for your elabomaration
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's why I hate him: it's because he knows literally nothing about music, and, because he's a musical idiot, things which are new or groundbreaking confuse him rather than excite him. Everything he's ever written about music could pretty much be summed up as follows: "This is simplistic, therefore I like it, and it will stand the test of time because dumb ol' me can understand it." Or, conversely: "This is complicated/new/mildly challenging, therefore I dislike it, and clearly it will not stand the test of time because dumb ol' me can't understand it," as if his musical pea brain is some sort of arbiter of what the masses will be listening to 30 years from now--you know, because he's such a visionary.HATE

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's why I hate him: it's because he knows literally nothing about music, and, because he's a musical idiot, things which are new or groundbreaking confuse him rather than excite him. Everything he's ever written about music could pretty much be summed up as follows: "This is simplistic, therefore I like it, and it will stand the test of time because dumb ol' me can understand it." Or, conversely: "This is complicated/new/mildly challenging, therefore I dislike it, and clearly it will not stand the test of time because dumb ol' me can't understand it," as if his musical pea brain is some sort of arbiter of what the masses will be listening to 30 years from now--you know, because he's such a visionary.HATE
lol...virulent hate. Would it be safe to say that Klosterman represents and expresses the lowest common denominator in music writing?
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The takeaway from all this, I suppose, is that w h o k i l l is a creative record, made by an auteur with (at least a modicum of) irrefutable talent."YOU ARE A NO-TALENT ASS-CLOWN WHO SIMPLY HAS THE AUDACITY TO COMPOSE SNARKY ASIDES LIKE THESE AD NAUSEUM AND IT'S MADE A 'CAREER' FOR YOUDIE

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The takeaway from all this, I suppose, is that w h o k i l l is a creative record, made by an auteur with (at least a modicum of) irrefutable talent."YOU ARE A NO-TALENT ASS-CLOWN WHO SIMPLY HAS THE AUDACITY TO COMPOSE SNARKY ASIDES LIKE THESE AD NAUSEUM AND IT'S MADE A 'CAREER' FOR YOUDIE
I hear the voice of Merrill Garbus speaking through you. She uses a medium to express anger, 'cause she's busy being artistically fruitful
Link to post
Share on other sites
lol...virulent hate. Would it be safe to say that Klosterman represents and expresses the lowest common denominator in music writing?
Nearly all writing about music would fit this description; Klosterman tries to delude people into thinking he's something more, despite his utter ignorance about the entire musical universe that exists outside his midget brain, which I always like to imagine in bubble-thought form as consisting of a loop that switches back and forth between the monkey with cymbals and the music video for "Wonderwall".
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nearly all writing about music would fit this description; Klosterman tries to delude people into thinking he's something more, despite his utter ignorance about the entire musical universe that exists outside his midget brain, which I always like to imagine in bubble-thought form as consisting of a loop that switches back and forth between the monkey with cymbals and the music video for "Wonderwall".
The majority of Pitchfork reviews I have read fall into this category. It seems like as long as they are breezily phrased with a smattering of ersatz evocative nu-vocabulary (underlining the reviewer's contact with "cool"), it passes as some kind of incisive overview of the album being reviewed. But it's not, it's hot molten bullshit spewing out of someone's ass.One way to analyse Pitchfork's rating system
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...