OK, is this the worst piece of music writing ever?

also i had never heard of pomplamoose (i know rite total ILX party foul, i have been led to believe) and...um wut

not like "this prob sucks" necessarily, i haven't tried it, but the overall explanation of what they are....i think "um wut" will remain a fair reaction regardless of how they sound

wait, were people really criticizing Pomplamoose for over-paying their band? Given all of their annoying traits, this seems like one of the least objectionable things they could do. Or am I missing some crucial detail?

but for real though, why is that Hozier song so popular

It's actually good. It's not about Pomplamoose really, it's about the way American society treats its artists.

― Humorist (horse) (誤訳侮辱), Friday, December 5, 2014 4:19 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not a good example though. The situation with Pomplamoose just shows that nobody wants to sympathize with fucking Pomplamoose (especially when they're asking for it).

i feel like i pay attention to & enjoy a lot of pop music and i have no fucking clue who hozier was, and after reading this goddamned forbes piece idk if i have any desire to even try it for music-anthropology reasons

Consumers and supporters of the “music wants to be free” ethos picked apart the numbers and decided that Pomplamoose spent too much money on lights and on pay for their back-up band.

No, it was touring musicians who questioned the lighting costs (and the relatively expensive motels every single night). And I don't recall a single word in any of the anti-Ploose pieces that implied they were paying their band too much; even the most vitriolic responses said something along the lines of, "(but at least they paid their band)."

no mention yet of the homophobic piece about the Peter Pan musical that Gawker ran?

i try to avoid gawker if possible w/ the exception of deadspin but it does not surprise me that they ran such a thing

that said they also like to pay lip service to moral stances so they can assuage their consciences (the ones who have functioning consciences, so, not hammy noles) over their denton-enforced dive-bombs into content aggregation for the sake of DEM CLICKZ, so, its double annoying when they do shit like that

there was definitely some question of "why did they HAVE 6 salaried people on their month long tour if it meant they toured at a loss?" before the Patreon info bubbled up, but that's not the same as asking why the salary was so high

the big irony of that "artists can't be saints or martyrs" piece is that this all started because pompladude wrote a faux-confessional about how his band ain't rich because they chose to tour at a loss

he sold HIMSELF as a martyr

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10462836_10153511319012137_7867710557987849448_n.jpg?oh=4ed5ed594ca71b54567d50be5b2dad5d&oe=54FAE6B5

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/14428_10153511322072137_6083905235496799694_n.jpg?oh=9ba57a71aa5b30af1fa08cdd56d36e50&oe=551C2845&__gda__=1425900420_77aac503d5c0da5216d13cfb663efc88

That gawker piece is a abomination on like a million levels

http://morningafter.gawker.com/peter-pan-live-was-the-worst-three-hour-drag-show-weve-1667018164

Love the idea of some music nerd sharpening his critical knives to skewer those darn musical theater types that beat him up in high school. Make sure you cram as many references to embarrassing gayness in there as you can, you shitheel.

they also like to pay lip service to moral stances so they can assuage their consciences

I almost wish they wouldn't. When the two modes collide and you get sanctimonious gossip it's the worst.

oh god i so did not miss this style of music writing. we have to go back

http://ratter.com/your-2015-coachella-friday-headliner-is-fucking-drake-1671889461

that's well suited to this thread; made me kinda ill to read

unless you are a medieval Venetia or Cher Horowitz don't say ducats imo

yeah it's just gross on multiple levels

it's like a parody of what everyone thought gawker was when it launched

Bros have felt like music journalism doesn't "get" them, so this helps.

Ms. Rac-Tan

Are you bigger than Drake? Get at me, zel✧✧✧@rat✧✧✧.c✧✧.

no mention yet of the homophobic piece about the Peter Pan musical that Gawker ran?

― EZ Snappin, Friday, December 5, 2014 4:48 PM (1 week ago) Bookmark

buncha straight men in this thread calling a gay man a homophobe.... welcome to 2014

I know nothing about the writer, but the piece read as classic bullshit musical theater = gay.

just scanned through it and there is literally nothing homophobic about it. i can see how one might think so if one's basic understanding of gayness-as-identity is lowest common denominator musical-theater-ness, but that would be actually homophobic.

Pretty sure a bunch of us saw the article as homophobic. Which it is. Also it's written from a position of complete gleeful ignorance about the subject at hand, and badly written at that. Maybe he should add an "I'm gay, btw" to the article to clear everything up to the casual reader.

being funny with gleeful ignorance is a great position to write from, actually

Should I make a comment about social justice warriors scooping up the low hanging fruit or would that be misconstrued?

i can see how one might think so if one's basic understanding of gayness-as-identity is lowest common denominator musical-theater-ness, but that would be actually homophobic.

but anyway, mattresslessness has it

"being funny with gleeful ignorance is a great position to write from, actually"

So you were a big fan of the wife writes about her husbands record collection thing then

After I read the part about how beating on pots and pans was analogous to beating off, this immediately sprang to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHLEA2HNR98

being funny with gleeful ignorance is a great position to write from, actually

― J0rdan S., Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:45 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

larry the cable guy fan here

Let's all construe the statement in the most simplistic way possible. That will make a strong statement against gleeful ignorance.

don't curse our darkness, complex it up for us

So:

perpetuating LCD tropes = not-homophobic

dismay at LCD tropes = homophobic

Gotcha.

i haven't seen the peter pan musical and don't care to, but from what i can surmise, from clips and coverage, it's exactly the kind of gay minstrelsy hetero culture latches onto to share in the fabulousness (and then draw a line in the sand with "homophobic" when someone takes issue with its representation of gayness or boringness or w/e). get a clue morans

it's very gay ghetto. i don't think saying that's boring is homophobic.

get a clue morans

Rufus Wainwright is boring.

Young Thug is not boring.

it's not homophobic in criticism to point out that something is cribbing from or has taken on the qualities of gayness/gay culture

ty

and sorry for use of the g-word.

The lineup has been shit the last couple years – COME AT ME.

anybody taken him up on this offer yet?

http://www.vanyaland.com/2014/12/18/state-pop-2014-average-person-doesnt-give-shit-music-still-popular/

classic URL

A bot generated that article, yes?

Headline OTM, not reading the article tho