The Pipettes

horrid

I actually think Pitchfork writing is pretty decent at times, and while I didn't express it (it was late and I was hoping others would start some discussion) the review should be a talking point because it 1) apologizes for faux-retro irony in the lamest possible terms, 2) gives them feminism shoutouts while glossing over the four boys who play the music, and 3) hilariously attempts to give indie-pop some kind of big-scheme importance or cultural weight.

And I know it's irrelevant outside the USA. Do you think that I care? Ignore the topic, brotha. It's easy, there are plenty more.

I find them trying for this big 60s girl group sound and getting it so badly wrong actually endearing (big crashing drums etc). If they'd been a faithful facsimile of their influences I doubt I'd find them anywhere NEAR as entertaining.

agreed

and there's nothing faux

ahem

or ironic

HAHAHA

about these aspects.

2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" Richard Kain.
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.

I mean, you could MAYBE argue that there was incongruity when SHA NA NA first appeared on the scene, but I would think retroisms have become established as fairly commonplace over the last couple of decades.

Maybe it's a sincere homage to the music/style they love, more likely it's a visual stunt to attract comments along the lines of "well aren't they cute." I don't know if I'd be more concerned about male fans who kinda got off on it, or those that didn't.

It wouldn't even be that bad a song if not for the obnoxious cheerleader-style shouting of the title. Am I supposed to take that any way other than as irony in 2006?

That the Pipettes are doing Shangri-La's impersonations on stage is almost a moot point.

That is an apology. That is what an apology sounds like. Whether it was necessary or not I don't really care, but he clearly wants to gloss over the fact that the Pipettes are pushing their image at least as hard as their songs.

The disappointing thing about the album is that the fellow from Go! Team is involved in the production. On paper I would really like to hear a bricabracolage skip hop girl group along the lines of the G!T but with, you know, songs and harmonies and stuff. But the way the record turned out is sooooo weedy.

Again, what is ironic about it?

I was making a crass rhetorical point, get over it. It's too hot in here...

INDIE

a proper pop group would have not got anything wrong. shiny shiny perfect facsimiles all the way

The Puppini Sisters. Why on earth were you watching ITV3?!

cracker repeats!

i dunno tim, when you say "clunky or clumsy" i just think : yes, it is those things. as for their vocals yes, i guess they sound "fine" but they're a vocal group, right? vocal groups should sound great vocally!

(i have only heard two songs - the ones on their site with videos)

What are the perceived imperfections on "Pull Shapes?" I don't really get it. Is it really much more clunky or clumsy than, say, Bananarama?

they're a lot shoutier and 'reaching' more than Bananarama because the song seems to demand it but as they really seem only in the same league as Bananarama as singers it's not totally convincing (but still endearing perhaps).

Have you been walking around with your eyes closed for the last few months? They're everywhere!

In 2006, when you hear cheerleader-style shout vocals, are they immediate and relevant? Do you take them and enjoy them for what they are with no added weight from musical or cultural history? Or, do you understand them through a lens that creates a distancing effect, as in "oh isn't it funny that pop music sounded like this once and now someone is doing it again." Irony is the gap between apparent meaning and intended meaning. Am I intended to take the Pipettes at face value? Of course not. Their music and image are intended to conjure up all kinds of associations to the past, and lead me to eventually agree that they are just so cute.

I don't understand what you mean by "immediate." What is something in pop music now that is immediate in a way the Pipettes are not? It is of no concern to me whether those vocals are *relevant*.

Do you take them and enjoy them for what they are with no added weight from musical or cultural history?

Of course not, but the same could be said for any specific style-connoting element in any contemporary cultural object. Am I supposed to find them all ironic? They seem to be more standard course now.

Or, do you understand them through a lens that creates a distancing effect, as in "oh isn't it funny that pop music sounded like this once and now someone is doing it again."

That's the thing - I don't find it funny. Was it funny when Tracey Ullman did it? I suppose the Pipettes are a little more goofy, but I don't see as that this makes them ironic. My response to them is not, "Oh, that's ironic that they are doing something with a little sort of '60s girl group style. Who would have imagined?"

I would dispute that. There are surely plenty of things with gaps between apparent and intended meaning that one would not identify as "ironic."

When I see/hear a longhaired pretty boy hammer a distorted guitar, I automatically think, "This music and image are intended to conjure up all kinds of associations to the past, and lead me to eventually agree that he is just so cool." Right?

'Cuz all musical choices must be read as meta-recursive signifiers pointing to the fact that they're pointing while also pointing to other things. Right?

God, that's exhausting...