Anyway, fwiw, I'm also sort of playing devil's advocate, since I'm the guy who wrote in my second book "Collages has always been implicit in rock music, in all music -- Songs are made up of pieces of other songs." (Always quote Christgau in the same graph as saying "In the late '60s, 'eclectic' was rock criticism's first cliche"!) Just seemed like an interesting claim to zero in on, either way.
― xhuxk, Monday, 8 February 2010 20:52 (fourteen years ago) link
("Also quote," I meant, not "Always.")
― xhuxk, Monday, 8 February 2010 20:53 (fourteen years ago) link
read that as "college has always in implicit in rock music"
― rinse the lemonade (Jordan), Monday, 8 February 2010 21:16 (fourteen years ago) link
No, only Steely Dan. And Vampire Weekend. (But you probably read it that way partly because I dumbly typed "has" instead of "have.")
― xhuxk, Monday, 8 February 2010 21:22 (fourteen years ago) link
okay, i've got it now. sublime + haircut 100 = vampire weekend
who knew people were needing such a thing?
― scott seward, Monday, 8 February 2010 21:29 (fourteen years ago) link
hey scott haven't you been waiting for this?
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13905-talking-to-you-talking-to-me/
― Mr. Que, Monday, 8 February 2010 21:30 (fourteen years ago) link
yes! i will read it! but first i'll post a picture of the VW dude from his blog:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/856/1336/1600/ezblog.jpg
― scott seward, Monday, 8 February 2010 21:41 (fourteen years ago) link
i think he liked the album! review is kinda boring, but not bad. i like this line:
"In general, Talking to You sounds like an album that is gradually divorcing itself from history and geography, as the Twins learn to build on that West Coast sound to create something unique and personal. They're not there yet, but give them another tour."
well, i like it except for that last line. but last lines mostly suck.
― scott seward, Monday, 8 February 2010 21:46 (fourteen years ago) link
Whoa - has anyone else noticed how gigantically dilated the chick's pupils are on the cover of this record? Methinks she rolleth balls.
― Hardcore Homecare (staggerlee), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 01:33 (fourteen years ago) link
Alzo: That Christgau piece was pretty good. I like the line "Koenig is smarter and wouldn't think of stifling it. Of course he threatens plodders and pretenders" which explains DeRogatis' reflexive aneurysm on Sound Opinions a few weeks back.
― Hardcore Homecare (staggerlee), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 01:46 (fourteen years ago) link
it's really good
it should be required reading for open-minded vampire weekend haters
― tramp steamer, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 19:22 (fourteen years ago) link
I don't think I'm just saying this because I like VW but the reviews defending/praising them are so much better-argued than the ones attacking them, which just strike me as weak, snarky and reductive. I mean, I read an evisceration of Nick Cave recently that I completely disagreed with but loved as a powerful, persuasive piece of writing.
― gotanynewsstory? (Dorianlynskey), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 19:29 (fourteen years ago) link
One mark of "weak, snarky and reductive" AND "weak, effusive and reductive" pieces is often that the writer's personal feelings about a given work interfere with her or his ability to produce a compelling close reading of that work. Yes, good writing can be motivated and shaped by an individual's emotional reaction to something, but that reaction has to be more about the writer's own perspective: it has to shed light on the work as it is.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 19:39 (fourteen years ago) link
That second "reaction" is referring to their critical reaction, not emotional reaction.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 19:40 (fourteen years ago) link
"that reaction has to be more about the writer's own perspective"
that reaction has to be about more than the writer's own perspective
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 19:41 (fourteen years ago) link
Yes, good writing can be motivated and shaped by an individual's emotional reaction to something,
that reaction has to be more about the writer's own perspective:
emotional reaction and the writer's own perspective--it seems to me these are the same thing
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:02 (fourteen years ago) link
oh i see you fixed it. so a writer should go outside his perspective? why?
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:05 (fourteen years ago) link
It's not possible to come at anything from a completely "neutral," disinterested perspective. That's a given. But--and I think nabisco was getting at this in some of his Tumblr posts--sometimes a writer's point-of-view on something has little to do with that thing itself. It's more of a grafting-onto-that-thing of the writer's attitude than a close reading.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:20 (fourteen years ago) link
I'm more sympathetic towards writers who are interested in getting at what something's about than gazing at their own navel, basically.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:21 (fourteen years ago) link
So they should stare at everyone else's navel instead?
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:21 (fourteen years ago) link
"The other day marked the appearance of a cultural product, enjoyed by people, not necessarily this writer."
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:22 (fourteen years ago) link
eh, i want writers to come to things they write about with thoughts and feelings and stuff.
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:22 (fourteen years ago) link
If I ever write a phrase like "grafting-onto-that-thing of the writer's attitude" again, sb me.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:23 (fourteen years ago) link
I'm more sympathetic towards writers who are interested in getting at what something's about
each individual person has or can have a differing perspective on what a piece of art is "about." it's not like we have writers and critics so they can unlock the secrets of the universe. we have them to interpret things through their own personal viewpoint
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:24 (fourteen years ago) link
I want them to do the same, Que, but I don't want their writing to be more about them than the subject they're supposed to be writing on.
See: www.ripfork.com
None of the writing there is about the actual reviews he's criticizing, it's all about him him him and some absurd vendetta he has against rock criticism.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:25 (fourteen years ago) link
That was an xpost.
so? so don't read the website--that website is not exactly what i have in mind when i think of the word criticism.
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:27 (fourteen years ago) link
Yeah, people do interpret things "through their own personal viewpoint," but there's also still a piece of work there, and sometimes people are so interested in their own reactions to that work than saying anything interesting about the work itself. Sometimes, I think, their reactions can and do often obfuscate aspects of the work itself too.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:27 (fourteen years ago) link
yeah i know, that's why i don't read pitchfork anymore
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:28 (fourteen years ago) link
I don't read Ripfork; I was citing a convenient, accurate example of the problem I see with a certain strain of criticism that's more interested in the writer than the subject.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:29 (fourteen years ago) link
And that's fine, Que. Pitchfork does that, for you. But it doesn't do that for me, while other examples of criticism does. And that's fine. But I think that, in saying that, you're agreeing with me that "sometimes people are so interested in their own reactions to that work than saying anything interesting about the work itself," which was kind of my point from the beginning.
"sometimes people are so interested in..."
so = more
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:31 (fourteen years ago) link
no i just don't think a writer shouldn't go outside of his/her perspective--unless of course he/she wants to write under a pseudonym
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:32 (fourteen years ago) link
;)
I sign all my checks kshighway btw.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:33 (fourteen years ago) link
i miss burt stanton
― Mr. Que, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:37 (fourteen years ago) link
I'd rather read nabisco's considered, engaged-with-the-work Tumblr posts about Vampire Weekend than, say, YouTube comments where someone who stumbled across the "Horchata" video looking for information about drinks decided to scrawl "What the fuck, this is total shit!" Really, I'm not asking anyone to step outside of their perspective; I just want the focus of critical pieces to be more about the work itself, seen through that one person's perspective, than about that person's perspective itself. Too much bad criticism is more look-at-me than it is look-at-that-work.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:40 (fourteen years ago) link
Was burt stanton a better sockpuppet? If so, sorry to disappoint. I try.
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:41 (fourteen years ago) link
you'd rather read nabisco than random youtube comments? that's crazy!
this is boring though and belongs on some dumb rock crit thread. this thread is about the mighty vampire weekend!
― scott seward, Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:48 (fourteen years ago) link
Scott, stop boring me. Dance. Dance!
― kshighway (ksh), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 20:51 (fourteen years ago) link
ill save yall a lil time
― plaxico (I know, right?), Tuesday, 9 February 2010 21:27 (fourteen years ago) link
can i just pop in to say that i missed out on tickets to see them on saturday by one point at a quiz tonight and i am really, really devastated. that is all.
― Freddy 'The Wonder Chicken' (Gukbe), Wednesday, 10 February 2010 01:21 (fourteen years ago) link
dude brings out a little of their inner billy bragg here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YALJ0ZXG59
― tramp steamer, Thursday, 11 February 2010 20:25 (fourteen years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YALJ0ZXG59o
― tramp steamer, Thursday, 11 February 2010 20:27 (fourteen years ago) link
lol
― united arab amirites (samosa gibreel), Thursday, 11 February 2010 22:02 (fourteen years ago) link
Giving Up the Gun video
― Freddy 'The Wonder Chicken' (Gukbe), Friday, 19 February 2010 18:17 (fourteen years ago) link
Ezra rockin' the Roger Federer look in that video.
― scott pgwp (pgwp), Friday, 19 February 2010 18:33 (fourteen years ago) link
Anyone else feeling like this album - unlike the debut - doesn't hold up well with repeat listens? Cousins sounds like a sitcom theme and the rest of it as slight as an Owl City album track. I was very into it for like 3 days when it leaked and never want to go back to it ever again. Opposite effect of Los Campesinos and Magnetic Fields new ones.
― ramadaan muhammad asalaamica rasoul allah supana watallah (jk), Friday, 19 February 2010 19:00 (fourteen years ago) link
I played this on the way to work today and was reminded that it's fucking awesome.
― slapped by a bear (HI DERE), Friday, 19 February 2010 19:01 (fourteen years ago) link
It's like the lightness of Owl City with a good chunk of the overbearing twee preciousness removed and a lot more interesting musical pastiches/influence-waving.
― slapped by a bear (HI DERE), Friday, 19 February 2010 19:02 (fourteen years ago) link