pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

No I don't care for that kind of 'humor'.

I don't think "Aren't I clever" is an inherently funny premise.

hmmm this guy seems like an indie douche but comparing him to a dangerous stalker is maybe a bridge too far

the Father John Misty thing is v clearly and explicitly a performance of a persona for comedic purposes, idk how anyone could miss this it is really heavily foregrounded

... and (sometimes) it's deep too! like the best comedy

Okay, so let me try and explain the joke:
It would be hilarious if some pretentious indie/roots musician tried to ridicule Ryan Adams' take on 1989 by issuing non-sequitur covers of two songs done in the style of Velvet Underground chosen as cliché counter-culture signifier, so Father John Misty is pretending to do so?

I had not gotten that, thought dude was just an idiot.
I guess it is kind of funny.
And then the Pitchfork piece pretends to go along with it, mocking an what an earnest response could have sounded like if written by a very bad music crit?

pretentious indie/roots musician

this is a strange characterization of the two FJM records imo

so Father John Misty is pretending to do so?

he really did record and post those covers afaict, so idk why you would say he "pretended" to do so

No no, what I meant was that Tillman is pretending to be a person, Father John Misty, that would do something like that?

this exercise does not come from the sincerity part of the FJM catalog (which definitely exists, just not here). strictly the performative-for-effect arsty d-bag part

it's pretty confusing imo

also didn't mean to diss the albums at all fwiw have not listened to them proper

slothroprhymes otm

what I meant was that Tillman is pretending to be a person, Father John Misty, that would do something like that?

yes this is accurate

cool!

and funny too, I guess, just went completely over my head

I wonder how it's received in general - like, I imagine a lot of "rockist"/old school rock fans who would find the Misty versions fitting put-downs of Adams/Swift, and then I guess the joke would of course be on them (as it was just on me) but still... moral scale aside, isn't it a bit similar to mocking racism by coming up with a caricature racist persona? (running same risk of actually appealing to racists)

racing thoughts.

isn't it a bit similar to mocking racism by coming up with a caricature racist persona? (running same risk of actually appealing to racists)

FJM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Borat imo

Basically the most appropriate way for me to fully express that I don't think he is funny and have it accepted would be to write a snarky and self-congratulatory parody of a FJM post in response.

Because then I would be taking on a persona and any criticism at me could be deflected by that persona.

Have you guys ever heard of Weird Al? He does the same thing but he is funny and also was doing so 30+ years ago.

The difference here is not bothering to change the words and substituting awkward pre-internet geek culture for safe and commercially proven indie rock snark.

I am perplexed by your attitude towards performance and public personas

Weird Al doesn't do what FJM does

cool if you don't think it's funny, not everyone has the same sense of humor

father john misty will look like weird al when he gets older

to write a snarky and self-congratulatory parody of a FJM post in response.

tbf that could be pretty funny. weird al comp's a bit strong, innit?

i mean it's fair to think the guy's an asshole up to a point, because there's as much real venom in some of his angrier songs as there is exaggerated-for-effect venom. i'd never say it's bad to object to the real venom, or think it's a total put-on - i just think his actual music ultimately has enough sincerity to elevate it from the hipster art project it may appear to be on the surface

I'm just explaining why I don't think it is. It's fine if you guys do. There are some signifiers about him that just rub me the wrong way.

Anyways I feel bad for hijacking the thread. On to more p4k is dumb...

xxp that's entirely possible

honestly I think the closest analog to FJM is Steely Dan, due to their mutual love of juxtaposing a surface of really finely constructed, sweet sounding AM pop with a bitter and darkly sarcastic underpinning, tho I wouldn't expect everyone to agree w me on that point (and I don't think Becker/Fagen were ever interested in really pretending they were anyone other than themselves; at least not to the extent FJM does. Their songs are obviously use characters as narrators)

and like the Dan there is some genuine (often wounded) sincerity in FJM's material, occasionally contrasting or cutting through the sarcasm and mysanthropy

i'll bet john grant could do taylor swift justice. he'd probably make me cry if he did one of her songs.

"The problem, and I think this is the true reason Father John had to take down the songs, is that because he's such a great musician, he actually (totally unlike Ryan Adams, who just can't write songs anymore) managed to turn Taylor's s**t songs into real art - even though he tried to show just the opposite. That's just how talented he is, and he reminds me a lot of Lou Reed like that."

Okay, this is actually p diff - the p4k writer did a+ imo

That is pretty funny.

Anyway, the P4k piece isn't helping. "Performing as Father John Misty, Tillman has never pretended his onstage persona is anything other than an affected performance designed to achieve the very verbs he transitions into identities—satirize, provoke, philosophize, and fight the cultural plateau."

Wha?

yeah that's just bad writing. maybe he's trying to clumsily reference Buckminster Fuller there, I have no idea

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fc3%2F5c%2Ffc%2Fc35cfca289537194c5583ff438f708f5.jpg&f=1

I have my doubts about the assumption that FJM is simply mocking Adams and/or Swift here. In his songs and live shows he's constantly playing with what he finds funny and what audiences find funny and he never stoops to basic snark.

I took it as being mocking of the dynamic of indie/rock guys "legitimizing" covers of mainstream pop musicians

dunno if he actually succeeded in making the songs good (despite the mockery involved) since I didn't get to hear them

but I agree I don't think he does basic snark, he tends to be a bit more complex and subtle than that

Why do we live in a world where this needs more words than "haha" and a link?

http://www.johnallegro.org/images/PhysicianHealThyself.jpg

You are talking to a dude who generally thinks 140 characters is plenty!

well, 1000 times 140 characters if you're being honest

I feel like all the bad press in this thread is only helping p4k get more hits

...ILM could compile a better music review site than p4k and I hate our polls (and hive mind results)

(a monkey with a typewriter could make a better music site so the standards aren't very high)

nah i think pitchfork all in all has actually gotten pretty good, the site as a whole has improved dramatically over the years, it doesn't even feel like the same site that it did 5 let alone 10 years ago

I have axes to grind with it but it definitely is not the shitshow it was 10 years ago

Its a circle jerk and their music taste is of a shitty p4k hive-mind

idk if anything they have gotten broader in their coverage over th years, idk what is p4k's "music taste" in 2015? obv there is a bunch of stuff they don't touch at all but idg how it's a circle jerk nowadays lol

i mean i don't even listen to much if any current indie and I find enough stuff to read there

Pitchfork started to improve when Stylus colleagues joined.

I mean I don't know I have my problems with P4K but at the same time it's ridiculous to say that they haven't made a concerted effort to do a better job of covering more non-indie genres like rap, metal, pop, dance music etc compared to when it was like 12 Rods and The Wrens worship

the circle jerks have just gotten more inclusive. all are welcome.