― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 4 June 2005 12:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Saturday, 4 June 2005 12:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 4 June 2005 12:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 4 June 2005 12:49 (eighteen years ago) link
As for K.'s writing, all newspapers are middle-brow, and as such the piece doesn't deviate far from the norm. Except, of course, per the above: trying to intellectualize a band that just doesn't support the ol' firing of the synapses.
(I'd take it all back if the above image were the actual album cover.)
― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Saturday, 4 June 2005 13:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Saturday, 4 June 2005 14:01 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm sorry this is bullshit. Sonzala (#1) was furious at how houston was covered by MTV and (#2) is not an idiot.
― deej., Saturday, 4 June 2005 14:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― deej., Saturday, 4 June 2005 14:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 14:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― don weiner (don weiner), Saturday, 4 June 2005 14:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Saturday, 4 June 2005 14:36 (eighteen years ago) link
hahahaha! i heart keith harris. he's been writing such great stuff for da voice.
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 15:07 (eighteen years ago) link
"Well, shit—who wouldn't marry Kenny Chesney instead? A laid-back little fella, he'll wash if you dry, sniffle proudly at your daughter's graduation, whisk you off to Tim and Faith's beach house for the weekend. Sure, one Amstel Light too many can instigate a 4 a.m. Billy Joel sing-along with his Lambda Chi bros, but at least he won't sulk Saturday night away in the attic alphabetizing Blind Blake wax cylinders by gas lamp. And any juniorette Joan Rivers who refuses to condone a Stetson at the altar should check Jack White's latest promo glossies. You'd prefer your groom decked out like a Hasidic Johnny Depp piloting the TARDIS to 19th-century Spain?"
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 15:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 4 June 2005 15:57 (eighteen years ago) link
I guess I don't have a problem about what he's saying about the new album, but the pretext and historical perspective is pretty wacked.
― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Saturday, 4 June 2005 16:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― scott seward (scott seward), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Saturday, 4 June 2005 17:46 (eighteen years ago) link
Not at all! I do it too. It's no more absurd than any number of other ways of spending time. The absurdity is part of what I enjoy.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Saturday, 4 June 2005 18:05 (eighteen years ago) link
I was thinking more of certain scenes that tried to slavishly imitiate acid house or detroit techno. Or west coast '90s rap songs that used Parliament loops. Sure, it's incredibly lazy to call that stuff retro which was my whole point. It's equally lazy to dismiss the Strokes or White Stripes as being retro. The term retro is mildly descriptive at best but it doesn't work as a criticism.
For example, I think Lenny Kravitz sucks but not simply because he's retro. It would be hypocritical of my to criticize him in those terms since I love for example Stereolab who is even more ridiculously retro.
As a criticism, the term retro is just a lazy shorthand that stands in for the old biases for originality and authenticity. It's a way to criticize music you don't like by implying that it's not doing anything innovative or that the artists and fans are merely playing with a nostalgiac pose. But my point is that these standards are not applied consistently. Another artist with an equally retrograde sensibility will be given a pass if the critic likes his music.
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:24 (eighteen years ago) link
Adding rapping to p-funk tracks (as well as turning them into, you know, three minute pop songs) is a huge difference. Obviously its all relative but I think its entirely reasonable to use the words "retro" in some situations.
I dont think he uses "retro" as a pejorative at all! You're reading a lot more into what he's saying than he actually wrote.
(I dont think its ks's best article by far - he's much more at home with hip-hop, pop, etc....i didnt like his slint piece much either - but I think he made some good points, even if he also made some rather broad generalizations)
― deej., Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:40 (eighteen years ago) link
i mean, the search for antecedents is one of the favorite forms of critical one-upmanship but it could go on forever and in this case i think sort of misses the point.
― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Saturday, 4 June 2005 19:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:14 (eighteen years ago) link
Re Amateurist's point: perhaps the article is understandably focused on the US, but if we're talking about bands/movements with "nationwide, not-just-college-radio-type exposure" based around "selfconscious retro-ism" then surely the model for this is Britpop??
But yeah, The Strokes are part of a different "movement"...
― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:37 (eighteen years ago) link
well, all of the bands I listed above had nationwide, not-jus-college-radio type exposure, actually. and i'm still not sure anybody has explained what the strokes are retro *to* -- they don't sound like a '60s garage band, they don't sound like the velvet underground, they don't sound like television, they don't sound like the cars; basically, the one band they really sound like is, um, the strokes. and yes, they do *draw* on those influences, but not more than, say, black crowes/urge overkill/local h/everclear/weezer/buck cherry/oasis/etc drew on allman brothers/bad company/elvis costello/cars/ac-dc/t. rex/beatles/etc. which is to say, if the strokes are "retro," i still really don't understand how those (quite popular) '90s bands were *not* retro. unless you're just talking clothes and haircuts (though, as i recall, urge overkill and the dandy warhols kinda dressed in period garb, and so did the black crowes, though obviously the perioid was different). strokes do what rock bands pretty much *always* do -- they recombine influences that have already existed. (which is also what hip-hop acts sampling old funk records under '70s-style soul vocals and daft punk mimicking eurodisco and kenny chesney shuffling mellencamp/petty/buffet and the killers mixing up duran/gang of four/"queen bittch" etc. do, obviously. i'm not sure i see a difference - they're all retro, or they're all not.) and though i really don't want to dissect kelefah''s piece--it' really doesn't bother me all that much, and he can be a great writer in ways unheard of among daily paper critics--i do think his main point here is to put forward the idea that white stripes suddenly came up with this idea that you can recombine different parts of old sounds into a new sound. and my quesion is: who *doesn''t* do that? so yeah, as he says. maybe it IS time to retire the term 'retro-rock'" (assuming anybody actually uses that term in the first place -- isn't it sort of a straw man? though maybe i just talk to and read different people than k does). but it''s not time to retire it because of the new white stripes LP (which, as somebody above said, sounds good, and pretty much the same as their other albums, on which they recombined old influences as well; i'm glad kelefah loves it, but they never sounded particularly purist to me) it's time to retire the phrase because it really never meant all that much in the first place!
xp
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 13:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 5 June 2005 14:56 (eighteen years ago) link
not sure i agree with this (there are *lots* of models for this kinda {bowel} movement), but i think it's an interesting thought, since didn't the strokes actually hit first (and perhaps bigger) in england? they definitely seemed to be on tour there a lot, when they just had EPs out. (in fact, i think their first EP may have showed up on american shores as a UK import.) and the same thing has happened with some american post-strokes new-new-wave hypes since -- definitely the bravery and the scissors sisters (if they count); not sure who else.(do interpol have brit hits? in the states, near as i can tell, they've never gotten much beyond college radio, though anthony can check the charts and correct me i'm wrong.) so maybe the reason i don' t notice the movement as much as some other people here is that i don't read the british music papers, who may well have invented the movement in the first place...
― xhuxk, Sunday, 5 June 2005 15:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 5 June 2005 15:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 5 June 2005 15:12 (eighteen years ago) link