October 28th, 2009 / 12:43 pm
Random
Writers like shitty music (a sampling)
1. The Beatles
If these guys
suddenly stopped playing songs written for girls to get wet over and instead started writing ’serious’ music, I wonder if generations years later would go around quoting and praising these fine young men as the greatest band of all time…
Naw. Ruiners of everything good.
2. Whatever shit is on pitchfork
Am I really getting old in the brain, or are they literally hiring 13 year old to write about ‘new’ music now? I’ve never seen slopping praise for 17 year old recording whatever comes to mind in their basement in my life. Wavves? What kind of preteen donkey farted those non-songs into America? Going to the ‘Best New Music’ section of Pitchfork used to at least yield an album you could listen to for a week or so. Now it just makes my neck hurt. Are people really listening to this shit? Is post-dick-piercing dance music really that hot again?
I’d rail on the overblown I’m-talking-about-Spam-but-I’ll-write-about-it-like-I’ve-read-Genet language these farts use to fart on the fart they are getting paid to fart out, but David Cross already did that way better than I could.
3. Tom Waits
I mean, yeah, I love Tom Waits too, but does anybody really buy this I-grew-up-outside-a-jukejoint-my-daddy-wrecked-Fords-I-like-drink-so-much-my-clothes-turn-into-liquor-pre-hipster-post-daddy-cat persona? I just don’t believe it. I wish he’d show up at one of his shows in jeans and a cardigan with a Polo. For all the douchebag fratboy knockoffs that bands like Nirvana and Faith No More spawned, there’s nothing quite like going to a Tom Waits show and seeing all the guys in the half-cocked fedora and striped suit trying to get seen drinking from engraved flasks in the men’s room. Come on, Tom. Give it up.
4. Neutral Milk Hotel
Yeah, yeah, I know. Their lyrics are real awesome. And no, no, I know, it’s so refreshing to hear pop music made out of a lot of different instruments, and it makes me feel like a kid again, and I never even think about getting a boner when this stuff is on. It makes me want to fire up everytime. When he says “I love you Jesus Christ” it’s not a religious thing, it’s a confessional whir in the meadows of twee love, but if it is a religious thing… man, how beautiful of him to come out and walk in his beliefs!
And what about Jeff Mangum? Dude, like, stopped making music all of a sudden and disappeared! That’s so mysterious. It couldn’t be that he was just bored for it, or that he had nothing else to say. He’s the new John Lennon is the new Lance Bass of the 00s, just wait until it’s a household fact.
Tags: pitchfork media, the beatles, Tom Waits
It’s true. I am a sucker for some NMH and Paul McCartney & Wings.
But mostly Wings.
reply
I sort of conflate things like Wavves in my head with ‘internet writers’. Both victimised and both represented as exemplifying something when they’re more just doing something they like. Though in both cases they can go too far towards annoying.
reply
Pitchfork has been thoroughly shat upon, but somehow it never seems old. And I’ll take The Cassettes over NMH.
reply
pitchfork has always been a bag of dicks, but things started looking pretty grim when they first started relentlessly hyping M.I.A.
add to this list: bonnie “prince” billy & pavement
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:01 pmBlake Butler—
i agree, they’ve always been bad, but used to be that you could at least find a couple of cool records, as long as you ignored the meat of the actual review.
heh, bonnie prince billy
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:06 pm+!O0o(o)o0O!+—
don’t mess with will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RWt2XW5VCM
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:07 pmBlake Butler—
fuck, totally forgot to include kanye west as one of the WORST things writers like
what a fartbag
October 28th, 2009 / 1:08 pmdavidpeak—
i actually really like billy boy. but he’s become a stereotype. i should also point out here that i have a beard.
October 28th, 2009 / 1:14 pm+!O0o(o)o0O!+—
“fartbag” is such an acoustically fucked putdown . . . very nice, blake. but i’ve never known a writer to like kayne west beyond a bit of fascination with the first few episodes of trapped in the closest? (tom waits and neutral milk hotel, definitely)
re: will oldham, i’ll defend “arise therefore” and “palace songs” and “viva last blues” to the death . . .
October 28th, 2009 / 1:15 pmBlake Butler—
i really like oldham too, when he’s on. i see a darkness is a true dark
October 28th, 2009 / 1:07 pmdavidpeak—
i think a lot of their “editorial taste” is just really boring or disposable. too much pandering to the party pix crowd. but i know what you mean. i bought the first wilderness LP based on their review and thought it was excellent.
remember when they gave that And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead record a perfect 10?
jesus
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:07 pmBlake Butler—
haha. yeah. i do like that record, but a 10 is funny.
October 28th, 2009 / 1:11 pmRyan Call—
that and you will know us… review was the first review i read on pitchfork i think. i remember liking that review a lot. i think i printed it out? man, those were the days.
October 28th, 2009 / 1:55 pmLincoln—
Pavement definitely.
Its sad that band took time away from the far superior Silver Jews.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 8:58 pmsasha fletcher—
yes. and fuck you james yeh for that time you said what the fuck is with all the fucking writers like silver jews better. fuck you. mean week.
fuck.
FUCK.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
reply
October 29th, 2009 / 2:04 amjames yeh—
jesus, not this garbage again.
fuck silver jews, writers always like silver jews better, stupid writers.
i mean, i like the jews a lot, actually. but seriously though, musically speaking, compared to pavement they’re total milquetoast. just a bunch of open country chords, some steel guitar licks and dickless drums. lyrically speaking, sure, berman’s great, particularly on paper, as far as quotability goes, which, you know, makes sense for writers to be into or whatever.
but come on, really? their sound would put your grandma to sleep.
nobody’s grandma ever liked pavement.
reply
October 29th, 2009 / 2:20 amalec niedenthal—
i think it’s tough to compare the two bands. it’s like doing dinosaur jr. v. sebadoh.
pavement v. archers of loaf, though, that’d be a tough one.
October 29th, 2009 / 2:23 amsasha fletcher—
whatever dude. i don’t care. i don’t. because what i fucking like is the fucking silver jews and what i don’t fucking like is fucking pavement and i’d rather listen to a bunch of open country chords and some pedal steel than the sound of steve malkmus masturbating.
October 29th, 2009 / 11:07 amdavidpeak—
sebadoh were awesome.
October 29th, 2009 / 3:34 pmjames yeh—
you forgot the part about the dickless drums, sasha
I simply think that writers are unafraid to tell of their guilty pleasures, music-wise. And that’s where a lot of trouble begins. For example, I love Hall & Oats, Devo, and Lionel Richie. Equally.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:00 pmBlake Butler—
the guilty pleasures are often way better than the actual pleasures, with a lot of people
nothing guilty about devo
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:06 pmKevin O'Neill—
“Guilty” is dumb. You like or you don’t like. (It’s a stupid radio show over here as well is why it pisses me off more.)
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 3:09 pmMatthew Simmons—
No guilt, Kevin. Own it. I think this song rules:
October 28th, 2009 / 1:07 pmNathan Tyree—
Lionel Ritchie has me dancing on the ceiling every night
and Devo is great
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 8:59 pmsasha fletcher—
fuck it. i love hall and oates. i fucking love springteen. i like neil diamond. i don’t care. that kylie minogue song about shit not being able to get out of yr head? fucking like that too.
reply
I don’t mind the Waits persona. I like the music, and the act goes along with it
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:17 pmstu—
I like Waits, but I enjoy this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3bU6Suvv2g
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 9:01 pmsasha fletcher—
fuck that act and when i saw him and all those fucking dickbags in their fucking fedora’s and stupid fucking fifties garb and fucking goatees acting like fucking idiots i wanted to burn the place to the fucking ground and just add to the smell of burnt rubber that is akron fucking ohio even if jim jarmusch was there too and fuck him for being so tall and fucking pale and always wearing black oooh it’s black and white i fucking getting it jim jesus what the fuck
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 10:05 pmjoe—
sasha, my friend, you are good at this.
addition: fuck ‘wristcutters – a love story. ‘
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 11:15 pmsasha fletcher—
i mean i love tom waits i do but fuck that fucking boho bullshit and fuck the word boho for being invented and fuck me for ever using it really what the fuck
October 29th, 2009 / 1:14 amalan—
Tom Waits! I wanna hear more songs about Mexican midget prostitutes.
reply
Heh, well I think that the fact that the Beatles went from “She Loves You” to “Tomorrow Never Knows” in like what – seven years? is what makes them so incredible. I hated the Beatles for years. I grew up in England, and it was heresy to say anything bad about them, so of course I hated them with a vengeance. But you know, when I go back and listen to the albums, you help but be impressed by what they achieved. i think that shitting on the Beatles is a decent ideological position to take, but it’s kind of tempered by the fact that the albums are really incredible given the time and the place they came out of. But in answer to your questions – sure, if The Backstreet Boys went off and wrote an album as daring and insane as The White Album tomorrow, then yeah, people would freak out. But it will probably happen just as soon as Lindsey Lohan gets her shit together, Bono becomes humble and Coldplay record a half decent album.
Also, as much of a hippy as he was, there are very few public figures around right now as ‘fuck you’ as John Lennon was back in the day. Again, kind of hard to imagine it now given that since he’s death people seem to think of him as some kind of cuddly old pacifist, but that guy was a genuinely subversive character.
I like Waits whole shtick. Sure, it IS shtick, but if he did show up in jeans and a polo, that would just be lame. I dont want singers to be ordinary. If I want to go see ordinary people I’ll save my money and hang out watching bus stops instead. I want them to be fucked up and glamorous and messy.
Pitchfork IS crap though.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:12 pmNathan Tyree—
I agree with everything you said.
Revolution # 9 is what makes The Beatles for me. Just the sheer gall of putting that on an album. massive.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:13 pmBlake Butler—
i’ll spare everyone my ‘why the Beatles ‘art music’ is still just as shitty as the yeah yeah stuff’ argument. i really just can’t stand anything about them. i do acknowledge what you are saying, but i don’t buy that their ‘great’ music is that ‘great’
tony, i want to hear some anton stories sometime
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:18 pm+!O0o(o)o0O!+—
You don’t like “Savoy Truffle?” “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except for Me and my Monkey”? “Blue Jay Freakin Way”? “Got to Get You Into My Life”?! ” TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS?!
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:19 pmNathan Tyree—
Love all of those. Must add A day in the Life as well
October 28th, 2009 / 9:01 pmsasha fletcher—
i’d rather listen to beggar’s banquet.
October 28th, 2009 / 1:21 pmMatt Cozart—
Do you like other early rock’n'roll (stuff in the same vein as the Beatles “yeah yeah yeah” stuff)? Just curious. “Guilty pleasure” alert: I like that stuff:)
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:35 pma moorad—
name some ‘great music is that great’ then?
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:43 pmTony O'Neill—
well, taste is taste so i wont bang on about it. i dont really like the beatles pre-rubber soul so much, and some people love that stuff. again, i think its a time and a place thing. the reason some of their ‘art’ stuff sounds corny now, is because we are lumping it in with everything that came afterwards. but at the time it was a totally new sound, and the effort that went into making it was something else (i saw a crazy doc on how they did ’sgt pepper’ and there is so much shit going on there musically that its insane.) this is making me sound like one of those obsessed beatles fans, which im not. like i said, my first love was punk, and the music i really came of age with was britpop. now, try to tell me that Suede were shit, and its a fistfight.
anton stories? heh, i have a few. buy me some drinks and i’ll spill my guts.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:45 pmdavidpeak—
i’m insanely jealous of anyone who actually got to grow up a teenager in england around the time when pulp used to be awesome.
October 28th, 2009 / 2:07 pmTony O'Neill—
@ davidpeak
oh man, pulp are so great. saw them a few times, in their his and hers days and also when different class came out. when you say ‘used to be great’ – you dont like their later stuff?
October 28th, 2009 / 2:26 pmdavidpeak—
i was referring specifically to different class. man, that record contains entire worlds. probably still the closest any band has ever come to replicating the weird brilliance of the first four solo scott walker records.
w/r/t the later stuff, it was always good (this is hardcore was better than okay) but it was never as good as hisnhers or DC.
like i said though, insanely jealous
October 28th, 2009 / 2:39 pmTony O'Neill—
ah. i hear you. ‘hardcore’ was almost brilliant though. if only the 1st side of the record was as good as the second…. you should check out ‘relaxed muscle’ the first post – pulp thing that cocker did. it was pretty good, and def. better than his solo records so far (in my opinion)
love those early scott walker albums too. kind of perfect that he ended up producing pulps last album.
October 28th, 2009 / 2:02 pmLincoln—
But you know, when I go back and listen to the albums, you help but be impressed by what they achieved. i think that shitting on the Beatles is a decent ideological position to take, but it’s kind of tempered by the fact that the albums are really incredible given the time and the place they came out of.
I think the Beatles best albums contain a ton of great songs, but I really think their innovation or “time and place” factor have been really overstated by the whole mythology around them.
If you go back and really look at the dates, they were like perpetually a year behind other important artists. I’m not just talking obscure acts like 13th Floor Elevators, but big massive people like Bob Dylan.
7 years between “She Loves You” and “Tomorrow Never Knows” sounds impressive on the face of it, but if you go back to the time it was somewhat part for course. How long did it take the Beach Boys to go from some silly songs to Pet Sounds? or Dylan from typical folk to Highway 61?
It was a time of rapid innovation and kudos to the Beatles for riding the wave, but I’m not sure it was as unique as the myth makes it out to be.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:06 pmLincoln—
Might even argue that their producer was more innovative than the band members.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:23 pmdavidpeak—
and you’d be correct.
October 28th, 2009 / 2:23 pmRyan Call—
so what about brian wilson? anyone?
October 28th, 2009 / 2:34 pmAmber—
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. I hated the Beatles for most of my life, but when I friend insisted I listen to the mono mixes that just came out, I couldn’t stop. I still can’t. The later stuff is just incredible, even by today’s standards, I think. Not the best pure musicians, no, but for creativity–they had some balls, I think.
Also, I love Tom Waits. What musician/actor/writer/artist doesn’t have a schtick? You gotta have a persona.
reply
what can i say, i like john cougar mellancamp’s “authority song.” i hear it, my foot taps, and i see myself dancing through fields of corn. i still must feel ashamed of this because i feel compelled to add that i also like coltrane and rockabilly and etc etc. but man, i get wet hearing backstreat boys. STILL. ahh, i like the monkey-looking one.
reply
sigur ros. or anything from iceland.
reply
Their reviews are completely unreliable for the most part, but, if you know what you’re looking for, they’ve probably at least written about some music that’s not everywhere or popular (as most sites eventually do). It’s just another music review in the end though – however trustworthy they all are. Their review of The Drones – “Havilah” (linked for mostly unintelligible lyrics, came to mind with nmh) built anticipation enough as any other despite using “sonic palette” somewhere in there. I think that was the last and first time in years that I’ve looked at the site. This is probably pretty obvious, but since anyone can download music pretty quickly for free (even months before a record comes out), record reviews have become secondary to that. Why read a review when you can much more quickly listen yourself?
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:20 pmBlake Butler—
for me it’s not even the reviews (as i know not to read them by now) but the crap they hype. anything that gets a high mark is guaranteed to be blank and shittily made, almost across the board.
downloading is the only way
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 1:22 pmjoe—
Oh, yeah, that’s absolutely true. I only just now looked at the hyped albums, all of which have some solar flare artwork. I’ve never even heard of half of these.
reply
October 29th, 2009 / 12:16 amsasha fletcher—
that’s because you don’t get out of the goddam house murphy
Oh and I didn’t like the Beatles til I started dancing.
reply
you are wrong about the beatles, blake. they are critic- and thus, certainly, internet-writer-proof
reply
Totally disagree about Neutral Milk Hotel. Tom Waits has a lot of crap, but he has some great stuff too (especially the Bone Machine/Mule Variations period)
Beatles importance has been vastly overstated. They didn’t do much innovation, they just did poppier versions of what other people were doing. Still, I give them credit for changing up their sound and keeping thing somewhat interesting when they could have coasted on their mersey beat pop for a long time.
reply
My wife turned me on to the Beatles sucking.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:41 pmAdam R—
haha i like that turn
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:42 pmAdam R—
reminds me of that sentence:
The horse raced around the barn fell.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:53 pmKen Baumann—
i like that sentence a lot
I’m so glad someone else finally dissed Pitchfork. They have been irking me with their whole hipster, holier than thou, Radiohead ass licking shit for a while now. The Beatles are “OK” though. I’m still kind of lukewarm about them though.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 8:16 pmRoss Brighton—
Fuck Radiohead
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 8:16 pmRoss Brighton—
and Pink Floyd
reply
finally a some true mean to read.
seriously, i think there needs to be a mean class because most of the shit this week hasn’t been very crotchety.
man crotch is such a great word. i like to say it.
i dunno about the beatles. i hated them until about 6 months ago. growing up i never “got them” or why people fawned over their music.
through my 20’s i hated them.
then i bought this giant wooden console record player from the goodwill. i went to a record store in la to search for some new (to me) vinyl. something in me felt nostalgic and i bought the fucking beatles “yellow submarine”. i remember buying it and thinking “i feel soft. what happened to me?”
i went home and put the record on. after the first song i was a fan. it spurred me to go buy more albums and they are all rad.
to me, the beatles work because of their underlying message of love. every fucking song is about love to some degree.
most of my life i didn’t really believe in love and all that shit.
lyrically the beatles are massive.
plus look at all the crazy fuckers their music spawned? give them some street cred yo.
i know you like those crazy people butchering motherfuckers.
inherent love.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:30 pmLincoln—
“lyrically the beatles are massive.”
What? Easily the worst part of the Beatles. Especially compared to contemporaries like Dylan, The Velvet Underground, The Band, etc.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:37 pmjereme—
to me lincoln. to me the beatles are massive.
and yes i agree with dylan and lou reed and etc.
but those guys weren’t singing about love tirelessly. album after album were they?
if you believe in love, true love, not the shit most people misconstrue for love, then the lyrics, i think, will feel more powerful than anything from Dylan or Reed.
see i think you main issue is that you are “comparing” the beatles to others more to your liking instead of just enjoying them for what they are.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:44 pmLincoln—
I actually love a lot of the Beatles material, but their lyrics have never struck me as more than trite or sometimes whimsical and kinda fun. None of their lyrics strike me as very memorable outside of the context of the songs.
Dunno what you really mean about singing about love tirelessly. Singing love songs is as old as pop music and album after album of love songs is kinda par for the course for early rock and soul and so on. On top of that, I don’t really think the Beatles did only sing about love…
The only thing really notable about the Beatles’s lyrics, other than the lack complex emotions, is the near complete absence of political or social aware in a time of supreme social and political unrest. The few songs that do seem to broach it, like Revolution, sound like lyrics your Republican dad would write.
October 28th, 2009 / 2:44 pmLincoln—
awareness
October 28th, 2009 / 3:02 pmjereme—
lincoln,
i dunno man i think on this one you either get it or you don’t.
kind of like bukowski’s poetry. a lot of people will identify with the working man’s vernacular in his writing but a lot of people dismiss him because of it.
you either get him or you don’t and i think the people that get him are the people who are very aware of their loneliness.
so like i said, you get it or you don’t.
October 28th, 2009 / 3:05 pmLincoln—
Oof, the “you either get it or you don’t” argument?
Fair enough though, we can agree to disagree.
October 28th, 2009 / 2:45 pmTony O'Neill—
no man, im with jereme on this. i used to think their lyrics were shit too: too childlike etc. but coming back to them now its their childlike simplicity thats so incredible. i mean, i wont sit here and defend ‘all you need is love’ or ‘yellow submarine’ ’s lyrics – but they could write some heartstoppingly beautiful shit too.
i mean – im a huge velvets fan. and i like dylan. but lyrically, dylan could drop stinkers just like the beatles could. anyway the ‘either-or’ argument doesnt work here – different music, different aims.
is there a better song about religion than lennons’ “god”? i havent heard it, maybe spiritualized’s ‘no god only religion’ comes close.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 2:48 pmdavidpeak—
Sex, God, Sex by swans
October 28th, 2009 / 2:52 pmLincoln—
Their lyrics aren’t shit, they just aren’t anything special. I think whimsical lyrics like and your bird can sing or mean Mr. mustard are totally serviceable for their songs. Ditto for their love songs.
They don’t have the emotional complexity of deep soul or the surrealist zing of the pixies or the emotional power of loud reed or the poetic interest of bob dylan… but they are totally fine and serviceable.
Just don’t see how they are massive in any way. They seem pretty forgettable to me divorced from the music.
But I dunno… what are the songs you think have really powerful lyrics?
October 28th, 2009 / 2:55 pmLincoln—
Tony,
I’m a fan of Dylan’s lyrics, but I bring him up more as an innovator of pop music lyrics than an example of quality. He was doing new stuff with pop lyrics while the beatles were recycling the cliche’s of others. Again, nothing wrong with that. Plenty of great music has been made that way.
October 28th, 2009 / 2:55 pmBlake Butler—
sex god sex is a monolith
October 28th, 2009 / 3:00 pmMatt Cozart—
“‘Tutti frutti’–that’s what rock n roll is all about, right?”–Charles Thompson, noted Beatles fan.
October 28th, 2009 / 3:01 pmMatt Cozart—
Why would you want to divorce lyrics from music?
October 28th, 2009 / 3:03 pmjereme—
word
October 28th, 2009 / 3:06 pmLincoln—
N.I.B. by Black Sabbath
October 28th, 2009 / 3:07 pmBlake Butler—
lyrics are the worst thing that ever happened to music
October 28th, 2009 / 3:10 pmLincoln—
Matt,
What I mean is that Lennon and co had great voices and good musicianship. Good songwriting too. They would sound good singing anything. And Your Bird Can Sing could be changed to And Your Butt Can Poo and it would be a hit.
October 28th, 2009 / 3:14 pmMatt Cozart—
“Yesterday” was originally “Scrambled Eggs.” It would probably not have been as big a hit had it stayed so.
October 28th, 2009 / 3:34 pmNathan Tyree—
while your choices are great – don’t discount lyrics like:
“take these sunken eyes and learn to see” which has so many possible interpretations that the head starts to ache.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 3:39 pmMatt Cozart—
Yes. Blackbird, by the way, is supposed to be about the black civil rights movement. Politics!
October 28th, 2009 / 8:17 pmRoss Brighton—
Goddamn davidpeak – SWANS kill. end.
Skee-Lo has never gone out of style.
reply
i absolutely love nine inch nails. is that bad for writers to listen to? or is it okay for just the self-loathing and angst-ridden ones?
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 10:10 pmjoe—
no way. just saw them. they still know how to be exactly nine inch nails, which is always good. or maybe this only confirms your suspicion – i have no idea.
reply
I probably listened to NMH exclusively for at least a year. And, yeah, I’ll own up to being a fanboy about any number of things (and proudly!), but I can’t find a legit complaint from anyone about that band. If only because Mangum writes the holy grotesque better than almost anyone.
As for Waits, some gimmicks are golden. I heart the talky stuff.
reply
As an experiment, I took a paragraph from the part of this post about Pitchfork, and replaced some words with certain other terms:
“Am I really getting old in the brain, or are they literally hiring 13 year old to write about ‘new’ writing now? I’ve never seen slopping praise for 17 year old writing whatever comes to mind in their basement in my life … What kind of preteen donkey farted those non-stories into America? … Are people really reading this shit?”
Which, in a Mean Week (sorry, MEAN WEEK) kind of way, sort of works in my mind.
I suppose what I’m saying is that I kind of agree with Kevin O’Neill’s comment some 967 comments ago. Indie music can all too easily equate to indie writing and internet writers.
Also, this – “I-grew-up-outside-a-jukejoint-my-daddy-wrecked-Fords-I-like-drink-so-much-my-clothes-turn-into-liquor-pre-hipster-post-daddy-cat persona” – sounds like seventeen tons of indie lit, frankly.
reply
I’m on the Beatles are “critic- and thus, certainly, internet-writer-proof” side of the tracks. They are indeed massive both musically and lyrically.
The “I Am The Walrus” section of the MMT movie always reminded me of The Shining when I was a kid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBRss3HUipw
reply
The same people slobbing all over the Beatles like they were the be-all end all of rock are going to be doing the same thing to U2 in 20 years.
You really want to be on the side of U2 fanboys?
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 3:54 pmgena—
i thought people aready sort of did that to u2?
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 3:56 pmLincoln—
They do. But in a decade or so the hippie generation will have retired from dominating cultural criticism and the new breed will be calling U2 the greatest rock band of all time. Barf.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 4:18 pmMatt Cozart—
I would bet you money that this will not be the case. We could go in on a savings bond or CD or something. In 20 years the winner will keep the whole thing, accrued interest and all.
October 28th, 2009 / 4:21 pmLincoln—
Who would you put money on for the band that the mainstream of this generation raise up to that status?
Nirvana probably had too short of a career to do it. Radiohead is just a bit too artsy for most people, will probably be more like the Dylan, the #2 that the slightly more hip people go on and on about.
Who else is in the running?
October 28th, 2009 / 4:29 pmMatt Cozart—
THE PIXIES if I have anything to say about it HAHAHA!!!!!!!!
But seriously, I don’t know.
Let’s hope the different generations learn to get along by then–learn to appreciate good music regardless of how old it is. Beatles, John Coltrane, Bill Monroe, Beethoven, Bach, Hildegard of Bingen. All pretty good.
October 28th, 2009 / 4:03 pmNick—
Nonsense. That’s what people said about the Smiths a while back, too.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 4:04 pmLincoln—
No one said that about the Smiths.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 9:55 pmNick—
You’re wrong. I’ve read reviews from the mid-’80s that made exactly that claim, which is why it came to mind now.
October 28th, 2009 / 4:40 pmcrispin—
hahahhh
u2
amazing
reply
I just interviewed Daniel Johnston on the phone. Daniel Johnston loves the Beatles. He talked about them like an excited kid. This is good enough for me to rate the Beatles, frankly.
reply
It’s funny when writers pretend to like jazz.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 4:25 pmAaron—
some of us really do like jazz homeboy. bob dylan can suck it, though, or suck on gore vidal’s wheelchair’s exhaust pipe. talk about overated.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 8:19 pmRoss Brighton—
Cecil Taylor
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 10:13 pmMatt K—
me too. is that okay?
reply
October 29th, 2009 / 6:42 pmGarett Strickland—
Just you wait til I get back to Portland. I’m gonna show you the meaning of jazz, BUB.
reply
October 29th, 2009 / 6:52 pmKevinS—
Get your goatee out of my face, boy!
reply
what i mean is i think i like everything that this post doesn’t like
reply
If you can’t get down to Paperback Writer then you will never be one.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 5:03 pmAaron—
booya
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 5:04 pmcrispin—
phoebe seems good, too
reply
this post wins if only for the pulp mention.
here is its prize: http://www.somethingawful.com/fakesa/richdork/
reply
White people like shitty rap music.
reply
October 28th, 2009 / 9:31 pmrion—
3-6 Anyone?
reply
for shizzle
reply
Again, just because it needs to be said, Radiohead and Pink Floyd are shit.
reply
October 29th, 2009 / 3:43 amJimmy Chen—
i really liked ‘the wall’ because it was very ambitious and theatrical, and it wasn’t weird pulsating ambience but like rock n’ roll riffs.
reply
hey, wavves is pretty good – don’t be mixing him in with that synth-pop and ‘i-wish-i-were-bob-dylan’ nonsense
otherwise, yes, totally
reply
i really like tori amos and i know that makes me kind of gay. i love the ‘boys for pele’ album
i also really like neil young way more than bob dylan, tom waits, leonard cohen, nick drake, or any of those ‘guys with acoustic guitars’ because neil seems the most earnest and less affected.
i also really like david bowie’s first 4 albums. it’s like john lennon chords but insane.
reply