The Mountain Goats

<3 john

treating this "trend" as anything other than a back-pat affirmation to the 20- and 30-something readership that mags think they need to survive (lol not that it's going to make a difference) is kind of silly.

― He grew in Pussyville. Population

i kind of agree with this, but again, maybe they're not targeting these articles toward the 20/30 readership set?

i dunno

If I am reading a profile about ANY artist, the last thing I want to read is the writer's commentary.

― Wes HI DEREson (HI DERE), Monday, March 16, 2009 1:08 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

why not just read the wikipedia article?

i'm writing post replying to posts about an article about several articles about some musicians who wrote songs.

anyone who argues stocky ain't sexy has to take it up with me personally

"stout" is the new sexy

If you are doing an essay analyzing the themes of a musician's lyrical output and how that relates to their fandom, then go right ahead, but that falls outside of what I would call an artist profile; sticking it into an artist profile tells me that you are more interested in showing people how smart you are than you are in writing about your subject.

why not just read the wikipedia article?

xp: I often do. I've stated before that I think most music writing is useless.

surm i try not to be much of a cynic but it's real hard not to see these as anything but a grab for younger readership. i would welcome ideas to the contrary.

the obv. explanation for why people wanna write profiles about me is because I am so impossibly attractive that once they've laid eyes on me they just can't help themselves

― Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter (J0hn D.), Monday, March 16, 2009 12:04 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark S

i'm not sure this is true!

;)

lol why are you even bothering then dan

I'm bored

and avoiding work

i admire ur conviction that writing is about showing off how smart u are

It's true, though.

nah

Or rather, it's true of 90% of what I've seen in the past 10 years.

that's why i have trouble reading the new yorker

I thought people wrote because they got paid because to write about stuff they sometimes liked to talk about on their own, woops

it would help if i used grammar

talking was invented so people could impress potential mates by showing off how smart they are

i thought that's what showing yer junk was for

i buy that a lot of internet music (and other) writing tends to come across as... show-offy, in some way. and maybe even a fair amount of music writing in print.

but surm it baffles me that you could think of the new yorker as show-offy in that same way! the magazines tone is so, um, even, or level--i dont understand how you could read it and think that its writers come off as trying to show off how smart they are!

It wouldn't be as annoying if the people doing it were all amazing writers, but since they aren't (and particularly since the nu-media revolution heavily promotes quantity of pieces over quality of pieces), well... you basically have The Legacy Of Pitchfork laid out for you, where people think it's valid to criticize a piece that is intentionally written as a moment-of-time meeting between an artist and one of his fans with biographical information about both that shows pretty clearly why the fan latched onto the artist because the author didn't spend enough time deconstructing the entirety of the artist's fanbase.

although that isn't even fair, this has been going on way longer than Pitchfork has been around (see: Simon Reynolds)

j0hn needs to hook up with winona and be like IN YOUR FACE GAWKER LOSER

otm

max i think i need to delve into it again now that ryan got us a subscription. haven't read it in a while, so i'm probably way off.

you might be thinking of people who read the new yorker and feel the need to show off how smart they are? see also: the economist.

If you keep a New Yorker on your coffee table, Surm, visitors to your home will assume you're Cultured.

I keep mine there because it saves money on coasters.

i generally don't have a huge problem with the new yorker (though i think the cartooning sucks, have virtually no use for the event listings etc, i can still usually find one or two things to read & enjoy per issue) i DO have a problem with people who read/carry/use the new yorker as a way of showing off how smart they are. xpxpxpxp otm

HI DERE: I think you would have a good point except that it's not really "a piece that is intentionally written as a moment-of-time meeting between an artist and one of his fans"; or rather, it is, but it dresses itself up as some kind of broader 'hey check out this crazy youth cultural phenomenon!' thing, and kind of rings hollow in that sense.

or in other words: given the choice between a good piece that would only be interesting to people who had heard of/cared about/were fans of the Mountain Goats, or a kinda-crappy piece that would have (slightly) broader appeal, this leans towards the second.

btw while i DO think there are probably a lot of people who read the new yorker in a large part because it is a STATUS SYMBOL of some kind i think the number of people for whom that is the ONLY reason they read the magazine is VASTLY OVERESTIMATED--maybe this is because i am something of a nyer stan, but it is, for real, a REALLY GOOD MAGAZINE, and id like to believe that people read it because of its quality more than any other consideration

i DO have a problem with people who read/carry/use the new yorker as a way of showing off how smart they are

how can you tell these people apart from those that "actually" like reading/carrying/using it

yea, point taken re: the new yorkers' audience base (and the economist). ryan was reading it on the subway yesterday and i was afraid people would get the wrong idea! ;)

in fact it strikes me that oftentimes people read the new yorker both because it is a really good mag and also because it confers a certain kind of status on them--that maybe in fact these reasons are not as separate as we might like to think

i smell a junior lit paper

I think you would have a good point except that it's not really "a piece that is intentionally written as a moment-of-time meeting between an artist and one of his fans"; or rather, it is, but it dresses itself up as some kind of broader 'hey check out this crazy youth cultural phenomenon!' thing, and kind of rings hollow in that sense.

I don't think it does that at all. I think, if it has a broader point, it is saying, "fandom still exists and it hasn't changed".

I think it is a well-written, banal piece. I enjoyed reading it because I like the way the author wrote it but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about J0hn, the way some of his fans act, or the way fandom in general works. More to the point, I don't think it was trying to say anything new; it was trying to pull a human center out of a story that is simultaneously unremarkable and touching.

this is my favorite part of the article... hey indie musician who built your fanbase through years of gigging and releasing albums, your persona is not appealing! plz leave this stuff to the pros who know how to blow it up, like katy perry.

John Darnielle is a wonderful songwriter and deserves many happy turns, but the cruel fact remains: On the scale at which New York usually operates, he is a commercially marginal musician. He is not about to blow up, nor will he soon appear in the pages of Us Weekly on the arm of Winona Ryder. He makes very, very good records that not very many people, relatively speaking, will ever hear. The same is true of Case, Oldham, and Bird. None of them feel compelled to do the things that actually famous musicians did in order to get famous, like create an appealing persona and deliver it to a fascinated reporter.

i know, weird right?

so, indie musicians don't care about their persona, or their cultural relevance.

He is not about to blow up, nor will he soon appear in the pages of Us Weekly on the arm of Winona Ryder.

we all know how this worked out for dave pirner. wtf john?

i was gonna say "he'd have a point if he replaced 'create an appealing persona' with 'take your shirt off' and 'fascinated reporter' with 'lad mag'" but neko case has done that.

xp yeah but wasn't it presented as "The complex bond between the Mountain Goats’ John Darnielle and his sensitive fans," and didn't it make plenty of generalizations about people who listen to him? i have no huge problem with sociological inferences or broad statements (if it seems like the writer was thinkin'), but i wasn't sure if i was supposed to be reading about all MG fans, this one MG fan, or this one MG fan as a representation of all MG fans.

what should musicians do in order to get famous?

a) create an appealing persona and deliver it to a fascinated reporter
b) make good music

sigh... I expected so much more from a site named gawker

i can't bring myself to read gawker, in general.

i like gawker for the most part

gawker has become a whole hell of a lot less fun since new york media started getting bulldozed.

look max, you're not gonna turn me into a new yorker readin, gawking 25yr old OK?

:P

last time I saw Neko was at this tiny sold out club called Irving Plaza.