The Pipettes

oops, I just refreshed it
fuck

I'm not at all bothered by their voices, they add no more or no less to their songs than Girls Aloud, Rachel Stevens or any of the other several ILM-feted pop ciphers you could name. Also IT DOESN'T MATTER that they can't sing - male vocalists who can't sing get a free pass these days (unless you're Lex of course), it's very rare that female vocalists are afforded that luxury. Doesn't mean I'd want to see them live though, if only for the dodgy harmonies.

Still not as good as GA of course.

I'd still go see them live.

Who cares about vocal ability and autotune generally? Well, myself and Neko Case, to name two off the top of my head, but that's not really here nor there. I don't think there needs to be a rockism debate here.

They sound better on the record so I presume it's been autotuned.

the live session on radcliffe sounded very close to the single fwiw.

Like Konal, I liked Carlin's line about the future.

Like others, I am not sure it's wrong to be nostalgic, or to like things from the past.

Ewing's line about the 1980s was good - incisive, original, convincing: it's a Fascinating Aida revival, not Spector at all.

There is a traditional historiography of popular music which in some way or another always seems to come back to the Beatles; and Lonnie Donegan who begat The Beatles, and Elvis who begat Lonnie Donegan, John Lee Hooker who begat Elvis and Robert Johnson who begat John Lee Hooker etc etc. But that is not what we are interested in here.

...I cringe and cringe and cringe.

(xpost x 2)

in a nutshell.

i thought they were a joke or something.

unfinishable.

"not so much retro as they are post-retro, the product of an age in which progression in pop music has all but been replaced by cultivation and fusion"

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

or

"The twist is meant to be that these three are sexually aggressive, have read their French feminism, own some riot grrrl records, and have distinct, unique personalities in a sort of Spice Girls way."

I could also swear that there was a line in the review early yesterday morning that has since been removed about how The Arcade Fire and Band of Horses should be playing arenas but have to settle for just being indie bands because there is no justice!!

Not a bad article, that, except they missed out the stripy French fisherman's jumper.

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.