Skip

I always preferred Jawbone anyway
December 18, 2008 6:59 AM   Subscribe

"I am staggered and embarrassed at what you have written, and firmly believe you should be banned from writing professionally in the UK, especially when i read some of the apalling bands you give good reviews to." The NME reviews Seasick Steve - in the literal sense.
posted by mippy (72 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
we live in an age where so many people pretend to like music, obsessed with not falling behind the hum of the blogosphere.

I have to admit, that rings true.
posted by jonmc at 7:03 AM on December 18, 2008 [5 favorites]


Yes, jonmc, me too. I'm right there with you and everyone.
posted by resurrexit at 7:05 AM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Offensive hyperbolic conceivably-self-parodical bullshit has been NME's raison d'etre for about 40 years so nothing new here.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:05 AM on December 18, 2008


I checked out Seasick Steve. He's not bad, but nothing earthshaking.
posted by jonmc at 7:06 AM on December 18, 2008


Nobody pens a good bad review like the British. One of the best I can remember (this was in Select, I think, in the mid-'90s) was a one sentence slag of a DJ Rap album; "Wrong on both counts."
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:09 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


> we live in an age where so many people pretend to like music, obsessed with not falling behind the hum of the blogosphere.

This would explain the popularity of many albums not located upon my lawn.
posted by you just lost the game at 7:13 AM on December 18, 2008 [10 favorites]


I pretended to like music before everyone else started doing it.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:20 AM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Ugh. I knew a heap of people at Uni who got their entire musical opinions, often verbatim, from NME. Pile o' shite it is.
posted by Happy Dave at 7:27 AM on December 18, 2008


"Because we live in an age where so many people pretend to like music". I'm sure I used to say words to that effect when I was a teenager (when you could read a half-decent album review in the NME) - then I grew up and realised how ridiculous I sounded.

Beautiful.
posted by 3.2.3 at 7:28 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Personally, I think the 'review' is well summed up by this comment on their website:

"Desperate-to-be-edgy, carbohydrate-stodgy white music review, written by a witless sixth-form level hack pretending to be a journalist."
posted by Happy Dave at 7:29 AM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


Looking over Steve's CV, I'd say the guy has legitimate claim to blues music (learned from a heritage player, history of vagrancy). The music itself isn't anything particularly special, but it's blues. James McMahon, on the other hand, sounds like he has no legitimate claim on criticism of any genre other than indie and grunge. A brief clip from another article:

"James McMahon, features editor of NME and a lifelong Nirvana fan, said: 'Kurt Cobain is always one of those people who fascinate music fans. His death has turned him into an icon. The film is a beautiful piece of work. I'm 27 and got into Nirvana the year before Kurt Cobain died, but I don't think I'd ever heard his voice that much, so it's quite a strong experience hearing him narrate his life.'"

So Cobain's suburban ennui > Steve's slightly stale blues. Whatever, guy.
posted by The White Hat at 7:35 AM on December 18, 2008


Metafilter: have a bath, get a job and shut the fuck up.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:38 AM on December 18, 2008 [6 favorites]


The words "contrarian asshole" spring to mind. I'm sure the hate mail is much more satisfying than is the beer money he probably made for writing for the review.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:40 AM on December 18, 2008


If its so awful then why did he give 2 out of 10 instead of 1 or zero?
posted by therubettes at 7:42 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


If its so awful then why did he give 2 out of 10 instead of 1 or zero?

Coldplay expansion space (otherwise known as setting Base 0).
posted by mandal at 7:48 AM on December 18, 2008 [13 favorites]


written by a guy who knows damn well that he'll never experience anything as cool as being taught guitar by the guy who wrote "mercury blues"
posted by pyramid termite at 7:51 AM on December 18, 2008


I am at once appaled and thrilled to see this level of wankery in music journalism again.

I heartily agree with everything he says and yet he must be wrong because he wrote it in the NME.

I adore the tone and clarity of the review whilst being cringingly embarrassed at the drooling, lower-sixth form righteousness of it.

I want to punch McMahon in his stupid fucking face whilst showering his upturned face in burning kisses.

In short I don't know whether to shit or laugh so this MUST be awesome.
posted by Jofus at 7:53 AM on December 18, 2008 [9 favorites]


Desperate-to-be-edgy, carbohydrate-stodgy white music review, written by a witless sixth-form level hack pretending to be a journalist.

Sounds about right. NME was irrelevant long ago.
posted by fire&wings at 7:56 AM on December 18, 2008


I pretended to like music before everyone else started doing it.

Your pretend favourite band sucks.
posted by fire&wings at 7:58 AM on December 18, 2008


Seasick Steve's first album (aside from the long rambling stories, that sort of... don't belong on a music album after the first listen) was really good. Haven't heard much past the second.

But either way, NME have always been one of the worst offenders of this sort of thing. I'd put Pitchfork just behind them nowadays mind. There's NME giving COldplay 6s and 9s, and Pitchfork seem deeply averse to giving anything but Wilco or Radiohead a 9 or 10.
posted by opsin at 8:07 AM on December 18, 2008


a witless sixth-form level hack

I'll be the first to admit I have no idea what "sixth-form" means. Some kind of low-quality school you go to if you do badly on exams? Guessing, like Division 6 NCAA sports, if there is such a thing?
posted by msalt at 8:14 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


[Sixth form = final two years of secondary education usually aged 16-18.]
posted by mandal at 8:19 AM on December 18, 2008


Pitchfork seem deeply averse to giving anything but Wilco or Radiohead a 9 or 10.

Hmm, I don't know. I kinda like that they rarely bust out the 10, it gives it more meaning. But I feel like they give a variety of artists 9 and such, but again, it's rare because most albums aren't almost perfect. What I like about Pitchfork is that they are not afraid to give artists really good or really bad reviews regardless of their standing in the indie or mainstream world (as well as their own previous reviews.) It's refreshing to see an album get totally slagged or exalted compared with Rolling Stone, for example, (I have a lifetime subscription for some inane reason) who gives almost everything 3/3.5 stars.
posted by saul wright at 8:25 AM on December 18, 2008


Odd that Pitchfork will lavish praise on indie groups that meet their tastes (Deerhunter) and skewer or altogether avoid top 40, and rightly so. But then in some bizarre attempt at white boy cred they review top 40 hip hop albums, as if 50 cent isn't coming from the same Senior Vice President of Marketing's office as Britney Spears.
posted by four panels at 8:30 AM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Hugh Barker and Yuval Taylor wrote a killer book examining issues of what's "real" in music: it's called Faking It and it's worth your coin. Best part about it is its chronological order: it begins by investigating the origins of the blues and some of the blues' perennial classics -- and there's a phenomenal chapter on Leadbelly and his outlawification by the Lomaxes -- and eventually leads up to the present day with Moby's and Ry Cooder's appropriation / redeployment of world musics.

Which leads me to this kinda-disturbing, for me anyway, conclusion: can we really distinguish meaningfully between who's for real and who isn't? Do we, like that despondent teen attending Lollapalooza in The Simpsons who, questioned as to whether or not he's being sarcastic, even know anymore what's real? There's a hint of pathos even on that new Spears album, I've heard.

Of course, there are extremes at which the answer is never in question. Pussycat Dolls? Elliott Smith? We know where these two would fall on the authenticity spectrum. (But then, what do even my choices say about the relationship between gender and musical genre and legitimacy whoops I just went crosseyed.)

And but so acts like this Seasick Steve fellow seem to occupy some intriguing middle ground.
posted by foodbedgospel at 8:32 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Interestingly, as I sit in a cafe reading this thread, the barista and her square-rimmed glasses friends are discussing why the Village Voice employs reviewers who 'hate theater and can do nothing but snark'. "If they hate theater so much, why are they reviewing it. All they can do is snark and sound bitter". Hey, music/theater/film reviewers are nothing more than the asshole from senior year english class who was always raising his hand to argue with the teacher and prove he's read more books than anyone. It doesn't change when people start throwing beer money at them to write...it just gets worse because now they can say they write for the NME.
posted by spicynuts at 8:40 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


This reminds me of something.... oh yes, the music section in my university "newspaper". A section where young, desperately hip liberal arts students write "controversial" articles so that someone actually bothers to read them.

I believe it is called attention-seeking.

As for Seasick Steve, he was quite possibly the best act I saw at Roskilde in July, he put on an amazing show to a packed-out tent and it was FUN, and isn't that all that really matters?
posted by knapah at 8:41 AM on December 18, 2008


even know anymore what's real? There's a hint of pathos even on that new Spears album, I've heard.

What the fuck??? What's real is whatever makes you feel! The whole point of music is to make you FEEL. If Britney Spears makes you feel alive, I've got no beef with you. Unless you like the new GNR album, then I've got beef.
posted by spicynuts at 8:42 AM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Steve... has legitimate claim to blues music (learned from a heritage player, history of vagrancy)

Woohoo! I'm halfway to being a blues musician!
posted by rokusan at 8:45 AM on December 18, 2008 [6 favorites]


It's a stupid review, but it does make me feel sort of nostalgic for the brief couple of years when I read NME and Melody Maker, did a fanzine and spent all my money on 7" singles - I thought they'd given up on that sort of thing and just acted as cheerleaders for the guitar band of the moment. (Smash Hits in its 1980s heyday left a much bigger mark on me than the 'proper' music papers, though, and their witty, acerbic, genuinely funny piss-taking was in a completely different league to McMahon's mealy-mouthed little rant.)
posted by jack_mo at 8:51 AM on December 18, 2008


Unless you like the new GNR album, then I've got beef.

I liked the new GNR album, so go ahead and bust out the A-1.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:52 AM on December 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


Without dwelling on the complex socio-economic factors that can render a person homeless, really, Seasick Steve should have a bath, get a job and shut the fuck up.

This is awesome. Let's apply this logic to other stuff!!:

Without dwelling on the complex father/son dynamics than can render a young, sensitive child prone to soul crushing depression for life, Hamlet should just have a drink, get a blow job from a fat chick, and shut the fuck up.
posted by spicynuts at 8:54 AM on December 18, 2008 [6 favorites]



I liked the new GNR album, so go ahead and bust out the A-1.

I like my meat rare, with nothing more for adornment than a slab of butter and a puddle of its own blood. Which is probably why I hated the new GNR album.
posted by spicynuts at 8:55 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Without dwelling on the complex father/son dynamics than can render a young, sensitive child prone to soul crushing depression for life, Hamlet should just have a drink, get a blow job from a fat chick, and shut the fuck up.

Technically, wouldn't that make him Fortinbras?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:58 AM on December 18, 2008 [4 favorites]


also: Oh dear Mr James McMahon, what an utter twonk you must be

Please...friends in the UK/Ireland...translation please. Precisely what is a twonk? Is it a pet name for a piece of anatomy or is it another word for a wanker/douche/fucknut
posted by spicynuts at 9:04 AM on December 18, 2008


We live in an age where people like to make big, empty statements.
posted by neroli at 9:05 AM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: the words "contrarian asshole" spring to mind.
posted by fleacircus at 9:09 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


although I should also say I like pitchfork much better than I ever liked maximum rock n roll
posted by four panels at 9:09 AM on December 18, 2008


Please...friends in the UK/Ireland...translation please. Precisely what is a twonk? Is it a pet name for a piece of anatomy or is it another word for a wanker/douche/fucknut

Yes.
posted by Happy Dave at 9:14 AM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm not familiar with Seasick Steve. But I am familiar with criticism, and this example fails at the fundamental of the task: As Mencken said "Criticism is prejudice made plausible."

So you don't like Seasick Steve. Okay. Well, presume that we don't know anything about the man and about his music. As a reader, I'm going to need at least a cursory introduction to both, and this can be done by wedding it to your criticisms. Is your complaint that it's just not very good music? Well, I'm going to need you to describe the music, and let me know what's not good about it, and let me know that you know enough about music to be able to make this case. Is your complaint that Seasick Steve is somehow inauthentic, either as a homeless person or as a bluesman? Why? Is the resulting music not very good? Is there something about this posture of homeless that strikes you as inauthentic. If so, how does this inauthenticity make the music somehow worse? There's a real thesis that could be put forward here, but if all you want to do is spew garbage over everybody else who likes something you think is crap, there isn't going to be much room for such writerly necessities as actually talking about the music you're supposed to be reviewing.

People think its enough that they have an opinion. It's not. You have to back that opinion up when you're writing a review. I'm not sure that someone who doesn't know how to write an authentic review is in a position to criticize someone for not being able to play authentic blues.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:14 AM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Pitchfork seem deeply averse to giving anything but Wilco or Radiohead a 9 or 10.

Sort of true but not really (old edit of their wiki page)
posted by skwt at 9:15 AM on December 18, 2008


Ok so are we allowed to say Twonk in here or is it a no no like another word that begins with T and W and that resulted in a lot plates of beans?
posted by spicynuts at 9:19 AM on December 18, 2008


twonk = combination of 'twat' and...'gonk'?

but it does make me feel sort of nostalgic for the brief couple of years when I read NME and Melody Maker, did a fanzine and spent all my money on 7" singles -

I used to go out with a vaguely notorious-in-his-own-google-name-search music writer. He had a nice turn of phrase, and a decent knowledge of his field, but it was completely overshadowed by trying too hard - too hard to be cynical, too hard to be controversial, too hard to insult his ex-girlfriends/schoolmates/etc in a review for spurious reasons. The end result was stuff that was gasp-funny in places, but pretty useless in terms of telling you about a record. On the other hand, there was web-writer I knew who also had good knowledge, a cracking sense of humour and a nice turn of phrase, but he let his love for the good and passion for the expulsion of the bad shine right through, and he was such a good read.

McMahon falls into the latter camp for me. God knows I can't cope with the NME these days (I listen mainly to bands who released their best album in 1984 or who have faces and clothes that would confuse mightily your average Scouting For Girlsfan even before they listened to the lyrics) but he actually seems to care about something other than getting a name for himself. There's not enough humour and passion in book-reviewing, but music (and to a lesser extent film) writing is oft too much about the cult of personality, or should I say, the cult of personality disorder. And it makes for a lot of shit, shit wordage.
posted by mippy at 9:24 AM on December 18, 2008


(BTW, I mentioned none of the writers above as one of them googles their own name on a thrice-daily basis. You can court publicity all you like, but don't expect her to behave accordingly when she needs to scrub up well...)
posted by mippy at 9:25 AM on December 18, 2008


So you don't like Seasick Steve. Okay. Well, presume that we don't know anything about the man and about his music.

He's had a top 10 album in the UK, so I think a passing familiarity with readers of a music magazine can be assumed. You know what, I really hate how the Guardian's Alexis Petridis feels the need to, when reviewing a record by a pseudonymus artist, give their name in full. It's so awkward and grating.
posted by mippy at 9:27 AM on December 18, 2008


"...he worked with Modest Mouse producing several of their releases."

Now I feel seasick.
posted by not_on_display at 9:33 AM on December 18, 2008




Something is real if, when they throw it at your head, you duck.
posted by Forrest Greene at 9:40 AM on December 18, 2008


Metafilter: an irredeemable honk of shit.
posted by newmoistness at 9:42 AM on December 18, 2008


n_o_d - I saw Scroobius Pip on an NME tour. I'm not one to yell 'Sell Out!,' but if I were I might perhaps think about starting to do so in this case.
posted by Cantdosleepy at 9:47 AM on December 18, 2008


Hugh Barker and Yuval Taylor wrote a killer book examining issues of what's "real" in music: it's called Faking It and it's worth your coin.

Oh, yeah. I did a front page post on that book a while ago.

Here it is again.

Thought you might like the discussion.
posted by jason's_planet at 10:18 AM on December 18, 2008


He's had a top 10 album in the UK, so I think a passing familiarity with readers of a music magazine can be assumed.

This is a new album he is reviewing, yes? They may be familiar with the style of music and previous work, but there is no reason to assume familiarity with the new work.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:37 AM on December 18, 2008


im so fucking mad right now i could just puke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by Damn That Television at 11:49 AM on December 18, 2008


I've read both links and am still utterly confused. Is two-paragraph, 24-point-font insult actually what NME runs and calls a "review"?
posted by roll truck roll at 11:50 AM on December 18, 2008


I've only encountered Seasick Steve while reading Q Magazine, but his success has leapt out at me as another one of these UK-only phenomenons. He seems so generic from a North American persepective, but there he is month after month hanging with the Pigeon Detectives and Adele and the Kooks and Razorlight etc. etc.

Will he strike it big on this side of the pond? My money says no.
posted by Paid In Full at 12:18 PM on December 18, 2008


Shit Sandwich
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:31 PM on December 18, 2008


From "Seven Reasons The 21st Century is Making You Miserable":

#6. We're victims of the Outrage Machine.

Well, ask yourself: If some music site posts an article called, "Fall Out Boy is a Fine Band" and on the same day posts another one called, "Fall Out Boy is the Shittiest Fucking Band of the Last 100 Years, Say Experts," which do you think will get the most traffic? The second one wins in a blowout. Outrage manufactures word-of-mouth.

The news blogs many of you read? The people running them know the same thing. Every site is in a dogfight for traffic (even if they don't run ads, they still measure their success by the size of their audience) and so they carefully pick through the wires for the most inflammatory story possible.

posted by jason's_planet at 12:45 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oh, critical burnout. See, I read this review and understood immediately what the guy sounds like and why a critic would hate him. When you're getting assloads of promos and most are mediocre and then you hear something that makes pretensions of authenticity (especially in the promo material) and gets big despite the music itself being bland bullshit, something inside of you snaps and you forget your duty to explain, hopefully pithily, why this isn't worth the money and instead you lash out at the phenomenon that the music represents and necessarily overstate your case and leave yourself open for attacks because you've been lazy or insufficiently zingy or whatever.

The blues is particularly pernicious in this regard. Back when I was reviewing records for money, one of the reviews that stirred up the most hate mail was over a band of brothers playing some smooth blues that I, had I been being honest, would have rated about a C- or D. But the way I wrote it up was taking the album as evidence that because the album was being promoted as really "authentic" blues played by old black men who had really lived through some shit and played with some serious cats man, and yet still was boring, plodding stuff about mildly bad women and how sometimes life just gets ya down, that "authenticity" wasn't a valid argument for buying the album. If all their experience led up to such a boring product, one that was functionally indistinguishable from Johnny Lang, why should their "authenticity" carry them through when Lang is rightly dismissed as bullshit?

But by being a white guy complaining about "authenticity" and the marketing of the black experience in a 250 word review, I brought down a lot of mail from folks who had liked the album and just latched onto me being racist or clueless or whatever.

The basic fact that I should have communicated is that I pretty much hate a good portion of the blues, but since the blues reviewer was never going to get to this album (he only really wrote about his band and his friends' bands, which was OK for a local rag), it fell to me. I know that BB King is authentic as hell or whatever, but he generally bores the shit out of me. Same with a huge subset of modern blues players—they're slick, they're wildly conservative, they act as an intermediary between actual experience and the audience in a way I don't like. This isn't to say that I dislike all of the blues, or even most of it, just that a lot of it annoys me in a fundamental way that is very much about the music itself and I don't think that the extra-textual stuff matters nearly as much. The way I listen to music wasn't a good fit for that album, and I should have either passed on it or communicated that more clearly, but I was getting $25 per review to write it up for the lulz, and I did.

Except that it failed as a review, because it only worked if you already agreed with me about the unspoken premises. I agree with the premises behind this NME review, largely, and can see what the reviewer was getting at and going for (and, frankly, I'm not impressed by the fact that he got attacked over it, since one population that should be held in more contempt than NME writers is NME readers, especially ones concerned with authentic blues and willing to comment on it on the internet).

So, my advice for McMahon is to realize that you shoulda passed on this, or thought a little more about how it would read. Because otherwise, you're going to end up being a dick for the sake of being a dick, because it's the only way you know how to react to music that doesn't immediately grab you, and that doesn't make music better or reading better or criticism better.
posted by klangklangston at 12:49 PM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


The music industry is much more a technology for producing and managing identity than it is about music.

Spicynuts: Sure, music can make you feel. It can also reward analysis, speculation, or flights of fancy. There are great pieces of music that I could not appreciate at all, until I asked myself "why would I have done it differently, and what would lead me to make music in that way?" - then the whole thing opened up to a dizzyingly wonderful experience. Music can make you not feel. Music can heckle and irritate. Music can encode, embody, or comment on complex ideas about pattern and form that our natural languages tend not to convey very well.

I am not asking anyone to stop using music as a drug/fashion accessory that controls your mood and lets everyone know which cliche you fit. But please don't try to imply that all other reasons for listening to music are somehow phony. I intentionally listen to music that I don't like. My musical listening experience would be pretty boring if I never did that. Brian Eno once described his relationship to music as an ongoing conversation, and that is probably the most straightforward way to present what I am trying to talk about. Even though I never liked late period serial music, or Billy Joel, the experience of trying to listen to it changes the way I hear other music, and changes the ways in which I am able to enjoy it. Listening to a piece of "difficult" music does not make me superior in some way to a pop music fan any more than looking at pictures of rock strata would make me superior to someone who looks at pictures of kittens. But it irks me that so many people say to me "don't you really like kittens better? I mean why would you want to look at anything but kittens, except maybe the occasional puppy for change of pace? I think you really only pretend to like rock strata, you can't even cuddle rock strata". That metaphor is a little strained, but I hope you get the point.

I know this only tangentially relates to the article we are discussing, I just had to get this off my chest.
posted by idiopath at 12:49 PM on December 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


In McMahon's defense, he did get me to visit his employer's website just now for the first time ever.
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 12:58 PM on December 18, 2008


banned from writing professionally

in a free society that must never be an option.
posted by krautland at 1:28 PM on December 18, 2008


Incidentally, this is the best album review I've ever read.
posted by Jofus at 1:32 PM on December 18, 2008


Yes, but Chuck Klosterman said...
posted by grubi at 1:35 PM on December 18, 2008


then the whole thing opened up to a dizzyingly wonderful experience. Music can make you not feel. Music can heckle and irritate. Music can encode, embody, or comment on complex ideas about pattern and form that our natural languages tend not to convey very well.

Ok..music can MOVE you. Period. That's all I'm trying to say. If it moves you, or me, or your grandmother, or your dog in any way, whether it be intellectually, emotionally, politically, mathematically, whatever, than it is REAL. Beatlemania was the first concert I ever saw. At 12 years old, was I supposed to dismiss it because it was in-authentic? It moved me. Period.
posted by spicynuts at 1:39 PM on December 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


You're smart, idiopath. It All Started for me when I quit thinking that whether I liked a piece of music was important to anyone.
posted by roll truck roll at 1:58 PM on December 18, 2008


James McMahon, on the other hand, sounds like he has no legitimate claim on criticism of any genre other than indie and grunge.

And only if you define "indie" as stylised, dumbed-down, marketing-driven riff-rock.
posted by acb at 2:18 PM on December 18, 2008


Beatlemania was the first concert I ever saw. At 12 years old, was I supposed to dismiss it because it was in-authentic? It moved me. Period.

People are sometimes moved by very stupid thing. That's an element of criticism, but not the end of it. There is some very bad music out there that a few people will be moved to tears by.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:48 PM on December 18, 2008


Seasick Steve's popularity in Britain is almost entirely founded on his brilliant performance on Jools Holland. Although I'm sure I'm not the only one that grabbed a Seasick Steve album after seeing that and was disappointed to find that, rather than being full of stomping stripped-down blues songs, it was actually a load of generic MOR shit.
posted by influx at 3:01 PM on December 18, 2008


Yeah this is gross. Good points about manufacturing outrage, cuz in the end its like inflation, it just makes people hate and ignore all music criticism, which is sad because the web provides such an opportunity for real writers to emerge and rock journalism is finally moving beyond hyperbole and into real analysis.

A guy who writes for a blog I write for posted an article today called "Ten Bands You'll Never Hear From Again in 2009." It was a list of 10 popular indie rock bands and some lame justifications. It got 10x the comments that my long drawn-out metaphor-soaked well-researched love notes to obscure acts ever get. Oh well! That's the way it goes yo. Dedicated writers gotta just stay positive and focus on the only thing that matters: great music that they love. Ignore the Enemy, and he'll eventually piss off into obscurity.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:01 PM on December 18, 2008


Ignore The Enemy, and with any luck, they'll eventually piss off into obscurity.
posted by mippy at 4:05 AM on December 19, 2008


Review more suited to Vice Magazine, but still fairly amusing. However, as a FPP it is a bit thin, IMHO.
posted by asok at 6:28 AM on December 19, 2008


V. Moon's recent, suitably seasick Takeaway Show with Steve.
posted by progosk at 11:41 AM on December 19, 2008


« Older Students Occupy The New School   |   You're paying me what now? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post