★ The Weeknd ★ What You Need ★

the fact you used the peg of weekend hate devalues the music you write about.

huh? What about using weekend hate to inspire a review?

and you KNOW that had i written about it with no peg but itself, we would not be sat here talking about it, because 1% of the people here would have read it, including you!

I've pitched lots of review ideas based on hating a record.

i disagree though, the fact you used the peg of weekend hate devalues the music you write about.

and this isn't actually true

I should have said "What about using weekend love to inspire a review?"

and you KNOW that had i written about it with no peg but itself, we would not be sat here talking about it, because 1% of the people here would have read it, including you!

yes...why is this?

doesn't this raise suspicion about the entire issue of mentioning the weeknd at all? and call into question the authenticity of any relationship between them and the artists you favour?

and it does devalue the music you write about, at least as far as a newspaper piece goes, if the only top line is a band you yourself deem utterly shit.

i accept it's one of the problems with writing about music interestingly for a paper, but you can't have it both ways. if it wasn't for the weeknd you'd have no article in the guardian about the weeknd, so you can't be too annoyed.

x-post using weeknd love to inspire a review would mean the review exists because of the band it's about...

basically, "this is good because it's not that" is a pretty depressing assessment of anything

not least when it's this=authentic that=fakery...talk about ways to turn people off...

doesn't this raise suspicion about the entire issue of mentioning the weeknd at all? and call into question the authenticity of any relationship between them and the artists you favour?

well..no? it doesn't

basically, "this is good because it's not that" is a pretty depressing assessment of anything

luckily it is not the assessment i made

kinda agree w/ garda here

yes it does, because you simultaneously say they are nothing to do with real rnb and then write an article about real rnb which leads with the weeknd, isn't this a contradiction?

if not, how not?

and what do you suggest i should have done instead? write a fucking blog post?

i'm not criticising you for doing it, i'm just pointing out you can't really play the anti-indie critic for a job and then simultaneously distance a band from the music you yourself are connecting them with.

even if your connection is only to criticise other writers, it's still one you perpetuate and gain from as a writer.

and part of the reason things aren't written about in newspapers like the guardian is because they can't be...some music doesn't fit their format.

again...you can't really use that format and then complain about it at the same time.

while i think there IS merit in adding a voice of dissent to a convo about an act like this while their acclaim is snowballing, in a way you're also just adding to the larger snowball of chatter about them in general. it's a double-edged sword. of snow.

like only on a handful of occasions in my writing career have i published something that can be fairly considered an attack piece on some artist that was getting a lot of buzz at the moment (whether nationally or locally), and in i think every case a) it was commissioned by an editor and i kinda went hey why not and b) i regretted to some extent how i went about it, partly because that's such a difficult thing to do well or with grace or a purity of purpose.

i don't think the lex was the first person to connect weeknd with r&b tbf

x-post nor do I tracer...but still, repeating other people's opinions you disagree with, in an internet age, seems like madness to me.

that's such a difficult thing to do well or with grace or a purity of purpose

agree 100 per cent.

i'm just pointing out you can't really play the anti-indie critic for a job and then simultaneously distance a band from the music you yourself are connecting them with.

connection isn't an either/or game - obviously the weeknd are connected to r&b, that's kind of the point, but they're a terrible example of r&b.

and part of the reason things aren't written about in newspapers like the guardian is because they can't be...some music doesn't fit their format.

defeatist! yes it can.

again...you can't really use that format and then complain about it at the same time.

yes you can? happens all the time in journalism, which isn't a monolithic industry with one voice and one way of doing things but a self-regulating multiplicity of voices, plural, all of whom attack each other regularly

Singles Jukebox is fun to me in part because i can just listen to the one song by an act i hate, slap a 2 out of 10 on it and write a mean blurb, and it it all out of my system and move on. props to lex for hunkering down with a whole album of stuff he's vehemently not into and writing at length about it but i think i can only do that at this point if it's the only way to earn a decent-sized paycheck that otherwise wouldn't be available to me to write about something i like.

get it all out of my system

yes but you're attacking people for publicising a band which you yourself give publicity to. you're attacking a newspaper for the fact that you yourself "had to" write an article which publicised a band you dislike to publicise ones you do.

that's as defeatist as anything i've said.

Writing a string of bad reviews is dispiriting and I wouldn't recommend it, but I don't see anything wrong with sticking it to an act whose songs have always offended you; it's especially cool when you've got a large audience reading. One of the most satisfying hate pieces I ever wrote was a review of an Eagles show for my local rag about seven years ago: I just really let them have it. "If you hated them so much, why'd you accept the assignment" my editor wondered once it was published. He just couldn't wrap his head around the possibility that a critic would want to explain why one of the world's best selling bands are a lump of shit.

oh negative concert reviews are fun. I sometimes get really outraged online comments for those, but usually I can say in all honesty I had no idea what I would think of it before I got there. plus it's a night out and you hear the bad music once, you're not alone in a room listening to something you have over and over.

negative everything is fun, but it's that which is better left to a messageboard or blogpost.

That's a step too far, isn't it?

Nobody here ever made a claim for "negative everything."

xpost

i think "negative everything" describes my posting style here pretty well tbh

i mean any negative review...is a laugh potentially.

time was you could write a blogpost

I want to be clear that I am making the following statement in the abstract; I haven't read Lex's piece yet and am making no assumptions on how he wrote it.

One thing about defining yourself as the person who writes in opposition to conventional wisdom is that, unless you're careful/judicious with your knives/praise, you could wake up one day and discover that people have anointed you the new Armond White.

so true

like why doesn't it have its own peg?

Isn't that what much of this thread has been about (Pitchfork indie's dominance of the critical discourse)?

yes but you're attacking people for publicising a band which you yourself give publicity to. you're attacking a newspaper for the fact that you yourself "had to" write an article which publicised a band you dislike to publicise ones you do.
that's as defeatist as anything i've said.

I don't get what's defeatist about a spirited defense of R&B in the face of indie critics who would have you believe the Weeknd is the only thing interesting going on right now. I thought it was nice that lex's article took all his negative energy and turned it positive by spotlighting other, less acclaimed artists and showing that R&B is doing just fine without the Weeknd. In the end, his article was more about Kandi/ Ambrosius/ Dawn Richard, etc. than the Weeknd.

the biggest problem w/ both that article and the similar way the debate has been framed itt thread is that literally the ONLY reason those particular R&B artists are set up in contrast to The Weeknd is that they also happened to release albums in feb/march

heh itt thread

Isn't that what much of this thread has been about (Pitchfork indie's dominance of the critical discourse)?

how is it pitchfork's fault that an artist has no news peg?

a house act makes a good house record will never be a news peg, even if it's a better record than a danish metal band is fusing house with metal, or some stupid shit.

its p cool that theres this one thread for all you dudes to be wrong abt everything in, maybe you cld just retitle it & keep this shit in here

how is it pitchfork's fault that an artist has no news peg?

I think that was covered too. :) In that it's not Pitchfork's fault (and I somewhat misleadignly refered to "Pitchfork indie", not Pitchfork itself) that the wider community of critics tend to lazily adhere to whatever Pitchfork is covering (see D-40's posts upthread).

(Ugh- pardon my sentence structure in that last post.)

that pitchfork is even able to 'dominate' the critical discourse is a sign of how fractured discourse is today? like if your thing is dance music there are dance music communities that you can find and be a part of that operate totally independently of the p4k sphere. like I don't understand why people care so much about whether or not p4k promotes their pet genre. stop hitting yourself.

its p cool that theres this one thread for all you dudes to be wrong abt everything in, maybe you cld just retitle it & keep this shit in here

― spectrum dudes (Lamp), Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:13 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

The Weeknd being described as "what you need" seems like a good subject line for a thread of wrongness imo

that pitchfork is even able to 'dominate' the critical discourse is a sign of how fractured discourse is today? like if your thing is dance music there are dance music communities that you can find and be a part of that operate totally independently of the p4k sphere. like I don't understand why people care so much about whether or not p4k promotes their pet genre. stop hitting yourself.

― who is john nult? (dayo), Wednesday, March 30, 2011 3:25 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i dont think u get this. everyone reads that site /pays attention to it in the music world. i can confirm having recently interview a bay area gangster rap dude who surprised me by knowing exactly what pitchfork was. its part of the game now.

like I don't understand why people care so much about whether or not p4k promotes their pet genre.

Thing is (and pretty sure I'm just repeating what was said above), I don't think the people in this thread care about what Pitchfork covers (I don't, at least). It's more about the annoying tendency of the larger critical community to privilege "Best New Music"-type stuff over everything else.

^^

yeah I guess I don't get why people care about what the 'larger' critical community privileges. or at least that's not what I find interesting about criticism, some cosmic tally of which pubs came out for or against some album. (except when eeeveeeerybooody comes out for something like kanye)

it's our job, man. if you made awesome widgets (or wrote about the best widgets for widget industry publications) but all the press and attentioned seemed to get lavished more on lower selling but much hipper sprockets you'd probably bitch about it a bit on I Love Widgets.

i would be interested to see someone actually run the numbers on the amount of press the weekend gets vs. whomever deej/al/lex wish was getting more press. i dont really have a prediction as to which way it would go but it might be nice to have some figures to talk about

yeah it's an interesting idea but i have no idea how you'd compile that -- metacritic seems to have a lot of arbitrary inclusion/exclusion practices, google blog search would have a terrible signal to noise ratio, etc.