Is Everybody Who Edits the Village Voice Really This Stupid?

As far as I can see, they do the exact thing all those Elephant 6 groups do -- take perfectly good '60s rock, subtract all the energy and rhythm and catchiness and push from it, thereby turn it wispery and watery and bland, and pretend that makes it "weird" or something.
-- chuck (ceddy@vil...), March 28th, 2003 5:31 PM.

This seems to be a long-standing gripe with him about a lot of what passes for indie rock.

I like that Big Flame comp., mind.

I have no probs with calling labels that release recs by guitar bands as 'rock-hating'. In fact, that's a what labels should be aiming for.

Rock can't just stay the same, that road leads to wynton marsalis type museum music and that's the last thing I would like.

Were SST rock? obv some bands on it live on 'rock' but they changed it to something by synthesizing (sp?) other precursors together.

Probably true (again, IT WAS JUST A FRIGGING SHWOW PREVIEW, Y'KNOW? --and hey, Amateurist, you use capital letters too --i,.e. "So saying the band 'are an anomaly on rock-hating Drag City' is another way of saying they ROCK. Why not just say that? Or better yet, explain HOW" -- which is fine with me, seeing how italics aren't available here and all.) But again, my point, obviously, is that merely saying "they rock" (which again, they DON'T, not as much as they SHOULD) would have been (even) *less* interesting. Though I keep forgetting that lots of indie-rock fans *like* being bored. I'll make a note of it.)

SST was not a rock-hating label, I don't think. Though it WAS too slow, a lot of the time. (After it stopped being too fast, I guess.) For the record, I always prefered DC-3 to Painted Willie or Das Damen.

(x-posts)

If I take Chuck to task with more tenacity than others here, it's because writing about music is his profession! That seems simple enough to me.

Chuck: I think you're being a little disingenuous. You have put D.C. and "indie rock" down several times on this and other threads, and you have implied several times that to not-rock means something is likely "boring," etc. ("lots of indie-rock fans *like* being bored"). But you have also claimed (above) that you were simply making an observation in claiming D.C. were rock-haters, and that you meant no slur by it. You say it's OK if a band does not-rock, but in such a way as it seems they have to get a special pass to do so.

Hmmm, I just thought of something...

TS: ROCK critics vs. MUSIC critics

amateurist do you honestly still question why people think you're a troll?

I don't think indie fans like being bored - I just think that for the most part (and these are all broad generalizations) they don't find the simple act of rocking to be terribly interesting. I went through a phase of a few years in which indie rock was my primary listening material, and I still listen to a fair amount of it. As an indie listener, I was less concerned about whether something rocked than about whether it challenged my conception of what rock should be. I wanted to hear something rock in a new way. Naturally when you're trying to rock in a new way, there will be naysayers who claim that you don't rock at all. The same thing happens in jazz - you have the traditionalists claiming that free jazzers don't "swing". That's the chance you take when you try not to sound like everyone else.

compare that to the first sentence in this post...

so is it safe to say you've never heard a Point Blank album?

Though only WOMEN bleed, of course.

-- strongo hulkington (dubplatestyl...), August 6th, 2003 1:22 PM. (dubplatestyle) (link)

I can't stand it anymore.

Nah -- Just that I hadn't listened to the Suntanama album closely enough when I made that earlier post. (So the flipflop has nothing to do with my "whimsy".) Point Blank's debut album rocks, for sure.

Yeah, closely. What's wrong with admitting that?... and besides, saying they're called Southern Rock by people who've never heard Point Blank isn't the same as saying the ONLY people who call them Southern Rock are people who've never heard Point Blank. (And also besides, flip-flops in opinions about music are a GOOD thing; always have been. Why would you trust somebody who never changes his mind?) Not that I have anything whatsoever against people who've never heard Point Blank. Whoever the hell Point Blank are. (And also also besides, the first sentence of that link above was FOLLOWED by my hedging about how Suntanama could sure as hell be a lot MORE Southern Rock. So it's not like I changed my mind all THAT much, anyway.)

Okay. I can see that. I could see "rock" rock fans responding favourably to specific songs by RT or FC or even NMH, but certainly not entire albums.
It's hilarious, sometimes, when you write for a large audience, how people will glom on to something you merely intended to be entirely self-evident and offhand, and whatever. Y'know.
Cripes. But, uh, from what I can tell, it was still reckless. Not that that's a value judgment either.