RÓISÍN MURPHY

xp re: cm punk

his last run in aew confirmed to me he’s a huge phony who presents himself as a certain thing he is not

A professional wrestler? No!!!!!

thanks ivy, was curious. hadn't followed him much in recent years, just remembered that he seemed to piss off some wresting fans with his vocal trans rights support (which i'm gathering was about as legit as RM's)

it would have been so easy not to choose to make the world a bit worse by covering this album but p4k's relationship with queer artistry / audiences is a lot like RM's when you get down to it

― your original display name is still visible (Left), Wednesday, September 13, 2023 5:39 PM (two minutes ago)

isn't there a difference between criticism and coverage though? they aren't actually "covering" the album -- they've posted a single news story about roisin in the last month and it's after she released her statement regarding the controversy. they've declined to cover even any further fallout. so is the act of good faith critical engagement w/ a piece of art in of itself contributing to a worse version of the world? i think i disagree w/ that assertion in most cases. this case would be one of them, for me. "this personally/culturally meaningful artist has suddenly changed our perception of him/her because of offensive speech/actions and it's harming my ability to listen to/enjoy this music" is a real & relevant emotion and i don't agree that working thru that dynamic via criticism is contributing to a worse or more violent world

i knew someone would do that and my very earnest reply is that wrestling is as rooted in reality as any other art

xp

i also don't think the assertion that ariel pink's fanbase has grown since the capitol incident would hold up to scrutiny

whatever

No one was saying that! He was being used as an example of a career that patently did not benefit from his heel turn.

"this personally/culturally meaningful artist has suddenly changed our perception of him/her because of offensive speech/actions and it's harming my ability to listen to/enjoy this music" is a real & relevant emotion and i don't agree that working thru that dynamic via criticism is contributing to a worse or more violent world

Dunno about a worse or more violent world but I do think it's an experience that has been written about plenty, sometimes feels like the only thing music criticism has expressed in the past couple decades, and while ofc a transcendentally great writer might still wring something out of it it mostly feels like that well's pretty dry now, regardless of new examples popping up.

eh. seems like the snapes review struck a chord with people

i think i'm less convinced of good faith criticism w/ art that is intentionally harmful. like movies coming out of the dimes square indie film scene funded by peter thiel for the express purpose of destabilizing society... i'm not sure the world would be served by too much good faith engagement w/ that art. and i think there's instances where like... the art itself has no frisson to begin with. for instance, dababy had been spinning his wheels artistically long enough by the time he got cancelled for his anti-gay rants that i wasn't really dying to read any reviews of his subsequent albums. but in this case where you have an album that was being feted as a possible career peek by a beloved & inventive artist... i think there's as much discussion to be had there that would contribute to a better world as opposed to a worse one

so is the act of good faith critical engagement w/ a piece of art in of itself contributing to a worse version of the world? i think i disagree w/ that assertion in most cases. this case would be one of them, for me. "this personally/culturally meaningful artist has suddenly changed our perception of him/her because of offensive speech/actions and it's harming my ability to listen to/enjoy this music" is a real & relevant emotion and i don't agree that working thru that dynamic via criticism is contributing to a worse or more violent world

This is kinda what I was grappling with in my newsletter this week, talking about Charles Gayle, a free jazz saxophonist who died last week who would periodically interrupt his live shows to deliver ranty monologues rooted in his hard-line Christianity, which included being strongly anti-abortion and condemning homosexuality (though TBF he was one of those Christians who believed that pretty much all human behavior was sinful in some way). But his music was entirely instrumental, so unless you were subjected to one of his rants at a show (and he didn't do it every night — I saw him three times and he never said a word onstage) it was very possible IMO to separate his work from his beliefs. Now some people — on ILX and elsewhere — have said, in effect, "I can't support this person's art because I know he believes things I don't believe, even if they do not manifest in the art," which I think is a step too far. I mean, we're talking about someone who was voluntarily homeless for two decades because he was on some kind of ascetic spiritual/artistic quest, trying to remove his art from the commercial realm as much as possible. Does a dude like that fit into conventional political binaries? I don't think so.

like movies coming out of the dimes square indie film scene funded by peter thiel for the express purpose of destabilizing society

is this a thing?

(i honestly don't know, quick googling leads me to things about RedScare and frankly, this is an aspect of culture I have politely decided to ignore)

i think i'm less convinced of good faith criticism w/ art that is intentionally harmful. like movies coming out of the dimes square indie film scene funded by peter thiel for the express purpose of destabilizing society... i'm not sure the world would be served by too much good faith engagement w/ that art. and i think there's instances where like... the art itself has no frisson to begin with. for instance, dababy had been spinning his wheels artistically long enough by the time he got cancelled for his anti-gay rants that i wasn't really dying to read any reviews of his subsequent albums. but in this case where you have an album that was being feted as a possible career peek by a beloved & inventive artist... i think there's as much discussion to be had there that would contribute to a better world as opposed to a worse one

― J0rdan S.

see, if anything i'm the opposite... i look at things from a systemic level, and i personally view harm done _without_ malicious intent as being _more_ dangerous than work that's intentionally harmful. i mean, if we're gonna talk about ariel pink, to me, there's no similarity between pink and murphy. pink is an asshole who won't ever fucking shut up. he's not ever going to be a martyr people rally around as a victim of the heinous Gender Ideology. murphy? she said something once, she didn't apologize, she just stopped saying it. that, to me, that's someone who's a _really_ sympathetic figure. it's _really_ easy to portray someone like that as a victim of cancel culture gone mad. i don't think that's an honest framing, but it's a pretty persuasive one, all told.

the unasked question here, the implicit question here, is who's more important here? who should this "debate" be centered around? should it be centered around trans people who are, right now, being materially hurt by institutional transphobia in all sorts of places, or should it be roisin murphy and her art? centering murphy's art doesn't say anything explicit about trans people. in implicit terms, however, in _practical_ terms, it makes our experiences, our rights, less important than murphy's. i think that niko stratis article a couple of weeks ago makes a really good point - there's this whole conversation and trans voices just aren't present in it. that's why i asked if the album was reviewed by a cis person. it's a question of whether or not pitchfork is giving us a voice in the whole thing.

Does a dude like that fit into conventional political binaries? I don't think so.

― read-only (unperson)

does it matter whether charles gayle fits into conventional political binaries? i mean, is this really about charles gayle at all? forget separating the art from the artist - is the reporter separable from the story?

who reads your newsletter? what influence is it going to have? who's going to be hurt by your promoting charles gayle? are there people you care about who are going to trust you less, who are going to feel let down and betrayed by your promotion of him? and that gets balanced against, you know, how much do you love his music, how much has it inspired you, how much do you believe in it, how much do you want other people to experience it? to me, that's the calculus of such things.

i'm not interested in the murphy review for what it says about murphy, but for what it says about p4k.

who reads your newsletter?

About 2500 people, about 50 of whom actually pay for it.

what influence is it going to have?

Very little, I think. I hope it'll help me sell my book this time next year, though...

who's going to be hurt by your promoting charles gayle? are there people you care about who are going to trust you less, who are going to feel let down and betrayed by your promotion of him?

I couldn't possibly say, but I hope they'd let me know. I do know of at least one trans person (because they commented) who is going to explore his catalog after reading my piece.

and that gets balanced against, you know, how much do you love his music, how much has it inspired you, how much do you believe in it, how much do you want other people to experience it? to me, that's the calculus of such things.

Exactly. Would I say "I can't be friends with you if you don't like Charles Gayle's music as much as I do"? Never. But I would say, and do, "I think this music is great. Maybe you'll like it. But, you know, he was kind of a religious nutcase, and that may put you off."

i'm not interested in the murphy review for what it says about murphy, but for what it says about p4k.

I agree with you on this. But here's the question I have: If they had assigned the review to a trans writer, what form would you have wanted — or expected — that review to take? Having just skimmed the review they did run, it feels like it was written before her statements became public and the third and fourth paragraphs were shoved in after the fact. What if a trans writer had done the exact same thing? Would that have been worse, in some way?

"I can't support this person's art because I know he believes things I don't believe, even if they do not manifest in the art," which I think is a step too far.

I tend to think the right thing for P4K to do would have been to issue a review, but with no score. That would have been a better move for The Guardian too, but especially for Pitchfork given their scores (annoyingly) play a public role far exceeding the reviews themselves in terms of impact - and precisely because of that role, it would have been more meaningful than, say, just docking a few points.

I would also go with publishing the review without a score, so everyone could focus on how poorly written it is

haha

haha

I can't really say what Pitchfork "should" do. Who cares. I'm pretty sure trans people will be here in 10 years, I can't guarantee the same for nu-disco, Pitchfork, music criticism, entertainment journalism as a whole, Ninja Tune, or the hipster reboot of the chick from Moloko

Jesus, Whiney

Trans people in a critical state these days esp in UK but sure I’m sure some of them will be “left”, alive albeit distressed, in 10 years, if things continue, maybe focus on thems instead of some poor corporations

I am myself annoyed at this debate especially because I’m listening to the album rn bc “is it even worth talking about?” Laura Snapes got the facts about trans people right yes but does she have cloth in her ears? This is an embarassment, DJ Koze you have done so much better

When Ariel flopped I thought “who cares? he’s always sucked” and it was “oh what a cool high horse bandwagon” and I was like ”no, his music has always fucking sucked, Round And Round fucking sucked, I’ve shit better songs than Ariel Christing Rosenberg when I’m not even thinking about it, he is and has always been lousy, I don’t care I don’t care, what’s next, a big expose on how Micah P Hinson is a Trump supporter? I listened to that yokel’s crapshit and it is crapshit, and Ariel is crapshit, and Roisin is crapshit”.

I hope it’s ok that I call Roisin English because I’m sure the Irish don’t fucking want her or Linehan any more; anyway, this woman sings and it sounds like the human manifestation of a suburb of Leeds

I got a good friend named Oisín and I’m careful to pronounce his fauny name properly. Meanwhile, Roisin rhymes with Raisin, when Murphy

xxxp who cares? they have publication power and views.

the "poor koze did good work so a review is deserved" is bullshit.

Yeah, fgti, I’m saying all the internecine details of music writing is just incredibly low stakes across the board these days.

The fight for trans rights is obv of the utmost importance.

I don’t think there’s any “right” answer in that fight that concerns determining the correct numerical score to put on a dance record

I mean, I’m listening to it right now, and it’s the worst record I’ve heard this year, and I’ve heard a lot of shit albums this year

“Free Will” actually made me stop and worry that my headphones were busted, Raisin’s voice had me so hivey, but no, headphones are fine, I checked

This album sounds like a bunch of food that was made with bad implements, eggs whipped with a hand mixer, steaks boiled, it’s all following established recipes but so faulty. I’m on “Can’t Replicate” and holy god this is so, so bad and embarrassing

I haven’t listened to Raisin’s music since she was working hard with Herbert but I don’t remember her voice sounding so ugly and awful. If we were friends, I’d offer her microphone suggestions, but it doesn’t seem like we are friends.

This album is not good to my ears. I liked a couple songs in the last one

I think I understand better the LGBTQ community’s feeling of betrayal more, now: “you’ve always sucked but we considered you an ally and thought it was so cute and cool”

Transphobia aside I’m more appalled that people are rating this shit anywhere above “belongs in a grave, buried”. Happily these songs are so poorly rendered I don’t think I’ll ever hear them in any context in which they’d be wilfully programmed by anybody

I’m saying “who cares” about imagineering some kind of “correct” response from Pitchfork.

I don’t think that writing about a record is akin to co-signing the behavior a TERF. I also don’t think that there’s some pressing reason to write about this record at all if they went that route. If they just didn’t review it, that’s fine too. I do not think that giving it a 0.0 or a 6.0 or an 8.2 or a 10.0 is good or bad. If they wanted to pull all the Roisin Murphy stuff from the site, go nuts. None of this shit matters anymore. Music writing is basically over.

What matters is the actual work people are doing to call out Roisin on social media online and in places like here. And people have been doing a swell job on that front

xposts to fgti

Calling her Raisin is a very good start imo

Raisin Terfy

for me, it's just the basic question of why add fuel to the fire?

I mean, I was spelling it Raisin to assert an assertion. It is spelled Roisín. It is pronounced Raisin Merpy.

The last song, “Eureka”, is slight, but great. Good work, DJ Koze and shithead. Glad you made it through your operation to live again and be transphobic another day. My response track: “I Wish You’d Died”

for me, it's just the basic question of why add fuel to the fire?

I will close by saying shut the fuck up to Roisin Murphy and the “A” on your album cover looks like an Among Us guy

I’m just surprised that any writer would elect to be hired to write anything about this mess except “this is awful and it sucks”, the transphobia is a mere asterisk to the ineptitude of its execution. Not that it’s an asterisk, just that the album is total garbage from any standpoint. I can’t believe I stopped doing chores and enjoying a domestic life to audit this, I feel like I’ve gargled grey shit, like some dogshit that’s been left out in the sun for a week. We all own computers now, we can literally phone in better music than this aural bleach. What is it about her? Her Aryan hair? Her pinhole eyes? I literally retract every gentle criticism I’ve had about a Kylie or a Kelis or a Madonna over the years, the world does not need this music, a fucking lamp or a fucking stool masquerading as a human musician. Go to hell, Roisïn Murphy, and take this garbage with you

rereading those 3 and 4 paragraphs on the p4k review and it comes across so clearly as "acknowledge the current situation and get back to our initial review assessment."

I take it all back, P4k should replace the review with fgti’s

omg go off

and to think we were recently doubting the value of negative criticism lol

I hope it’s ok that I call Roisin English because I’m sure the Irish don’t fucking want her or Linehan any more

You didn't though, did you?

I don’t remember her voice sounding so ugly and awful

koze messed around with her voice a lot on this album. it doesn't really work, one of the big weaknesses of it. idk what he was thinking/going for at all there (or with some of these tracks more generally)

i do like about half the album (though really not enough to come back to even without the transphobia) but the tracks that don't work really don't work.

Gauging by her vocal performance, she’s not even English, not even human. She’s like.. a malfunctioning appliance? Or more an obsolete purchase or something? She’s a book from the 80s trying to convince you that it’s reasonable to cook eggs in a microwave.

If a microwaved egg is Irish, then Roisin is Irish. Otherwise, she’s just a fucking microwaved egg