Sasha Frere-Jones: Really?????

Why is the New Yorker so popular? The writing?

i think the new yorker's writing is v. good.

hahaha, yeah. i had a subscription for a year or two in high school. i was just referring to the following exchange from the Awl thread:

Why is Gawker so popular? The writing?

― kshighway (ksh), Monday, January 11, 2010 11:02 AM (3 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, the pictures

― max, Monday, January 11, 2010 11:03 AM (3 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i think it's the HTML coding actually

― fella, cutie (s1ocki), Monday, January 11, 2010 11:13 AM (3 months ago)

wkiw sfj

article was great, needed a little more funk in it though

why is nicki minaj his ninth favorite album of the year?

i was thinking the same thing

Are you wondering why it's so high or so low?

Wikipedia says she doesn't have an album of her own out yet

so, probably the fact that she's just listed there?

well, unless he's talking about barbie world or has got secret new yorker privileges, it isn't out or leaked yet, and no concrete info about is has been released or anything. assuming he just means nicki minaj disparate output of 2010 so far.

iirc he had Carter 3 listed as one of his favorite albums of the year way before its release based mixtape(s) full of leaks that ended up having nothing to do with the album it eventually ended up being.

haha yeah I was wondering why a person was #9 on a list of albums. had no idea she even had an album coming out, no way i'd be able to get through a whole 2010 minaj album anyway

ok just checked out dude's 2009 album list and he's got sleigh bells at number one, and their debut still isn't out. either a weirdly desperate attempt at getting there first or dude is really loose with his definition of the word album.

well, Ring Ring was streaming on Myspace so, you know, album!

bought the NYer just for this article. which parts did you find clumsy?

― ksh, Sunday, 9 May 2010 23:15 (Yesterday)

E.g.:

"In discussions of rock recordings, there is often great reverence for the live room, where the instruments are recorded.... Musicians believe that the air in these spaces and the ambience of these buildings are an integral part of what makes the recordings special."

I mean "the air"? Really? Not, say, the particular acoustics of the room? He makes it sound like it's something purely superstitious.

air can hurt you too.

I'm guessing he just means air. It was humid in the French basement where the Stones made Exile on Main St., for example.

the last time there was a major "no air" recording was like, 2007/2008 or something O_O

i'm not being a smartass, this is literally the only possible interpretation i can think of for the above post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pL6fK1iNIQ

Can you feel it coming in the air tonight, oh Lord, oh Lord

Or: "Murphy leaped about, singing into a small Sennheiser mike, a type of mike that, though Pink Floyd used it for vocals, is usually used to record guitar."

Sennheiser is a brand of microphone - they make vocal mics as well as guitar mics. I mean maybe it would be too nerdy for the New Yorker to put in an actual model number, but it sounds off this way.

Also, there's a description of him composing Losing My Edge by "turning on the [toy rhythm box he was given], and singing and drumming at the same time." -- Not only is this an awkward way to describe it (turning on the rhythm box is not really a notable part of the process) but he doesn't really sing in that song.

Also, "For someone coming from a performance-based background -- like jazz or classical music -- Murphy's approach can be puzzling. But he is more concerned with the sonic qualities of the equipment than with those of the physical space they are recorded in." Wow, holy shit, you mean he uses the recording process as his instrument? Coming from a performance-based background, I am somewhat puzzled by this novel approach.

Also: "LCD shows draw a mixture of teenagers, fashion plates, and older fans who can probably identify exactly what kind of bass Murphy uses just by listening."

some dude: *high-five*

abbreviating microphone as "mike" is by far the greatest offense there imo

ksh does that mean i accurately understood your joke or what? i'm still somewhat confused

yep, that was the joke -- you got it

oh ok -- i srsly thought you were on some crazy tech jargon ish

hahaha!! :-D nope, you were OTM

koritfw

if you told me you could identify what kind of bass james murphy uses just by listening i wouldn't believe you even if you are an older fan

Listen, I've heard a few basses in my day.

ashamed to say, i didn't even realize murphy was using a bass. i thought it was all programmed sounds. and i like lcd soundsystem -- a lot.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060807213258/uncyclopedia/images/6/6c/Bass_player.JPG

old school, i see

live bass

havent read yet, quotes are infuriating

sfj is a very skilled writer who does stuff like that that pisses me off pretty frequently. his review of the sade album hit the mark so correctly and then ... he complained about the sax solos on her classic records. its like ... thefuck?? how can you like sade and complain about the sax. thats, like, central to the appeal. its like "im feeling this bob dylan record, but i wish he sang like aretha." not the point bro

if the quotes hurting has upthread are really conflating all sennheisers together w/out realizing that they make both guitar & vocal mics, then i basically am 100% in the camp w/ albini about music 'journalism' today

if on the other hand its the same model but hes implying all sennheisers are the same, then its just bad writing

what's albini's take?

Sorry, that should be

Wow, holy shit, you mean he uses the recording process as his instrument makes largely electronic music? Coming from a performance-based background, I am somewhat puzzled by this novel approach.

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=49129&sid=bf28f1bde7d7dd2f755bc7bd8623ced0

The quotes that Hurting 2 posted are all great examples of this thing that critics sometimes do that really irritates me. Basically these are attempts to discuss the technical aspects of a recording in layman's terms, but the details are completely fudged and don't make any real sense.

I appreciate it when a critic can engage in technical talk and get it right and add something interesting to the discussion, but it grates on me when they make obvious errors.

sfj is a very skilled writer who does stuff like that that pisses me off pretty frequently. his review of the sade album hit the mark so correctly and then ... he complained about the sax solos on her classic records. its like ... thefuck?? how can you like sade and complain about the sax. thats, like, central to the appeal. its like "im feeling this bob dylan record, but i wish he sang like aretha." not the point bro

in fairness tho deej if anybody ever says anything less than glowing about any aspect of a sade record yr take is gonna be "omg heretic" mais non

Exactly. And I think it's better writing to go slightly over people's heads with accurate technical detail (if he is in fact capable of that, which I'm not sure) then to dumb-down inaccurately.

(xpost)

sfj really seems to be in a rock/hard place sitch trying to describe contemporary music to lame nyer readers but he doesn't do himself any favors either--he's a musician and should know that all that "can tell the type of bass" stuff is complete bullshit

deej is right in this case tho

it's true, i've just been hittin the wine again tbh

was gonna say ... are u hating on smooth operator sax now???

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=49129&sid=bf28f1bde7d7dd2f755bc7bd8623ced0

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.