Having now read the piece, I'm wondering what you dudes are so ass-hurt about.
It's not a work of reportage, it's not a screed... it's just a thinkpiece
Sasha is an idiot, as he's shown over and over again.
90% of the bands he's talking about aren't "indie" ("indie" is, after all, an abbreviation of independent), plus his thinkpiece is akin to thoughts one would have on the toilet and should feel embarrassed to share with others.
At least he's not alone.
Music journalism is a joke. If Sasha was covering New York politics, for example, but couldn't name a comptroller or borough chief, or which city department was responsible for maintaining street signs, he'd be fired.
Ignorance is a standard in music journalism, with its "journalists" repeating apocrypha, making shit up off the top of their heads, crediting people with things they didn't do, and religiously maintaining a fundamental ignorance of the practices of their supposed subject of interest. The writing wouldn't pass tests normally applied to any other kind of journalism; factual statements containing fact, temporal statements accurately reflecting time, relative statements describing real relationships, etc. There is more scrutiny for Page 6 type shit (how many times has Brittney flashed her beaver) than there is for cover stories like, "Can Rick Ruben Save The Record Industry?"
Having now read the piece, I'm wondering what you dudes are so ass-hurt about.
It's not a work of reportage, it's not a screed... it's just a thinkpiece
Sasha is an idiot, as he's shown over and over again.
90% of the bands he's talking about aren't "indie" ("indie" is, after all, an abbreviation of independent), plus his thinkpiece is akin to thoughts one would have on the toilet and should feel embarrassed to share with others.
At least he's not alone.
Music journalism is a joke. If Sasha was covering New York politics, for example, but couldn't name a comptroller or borough chief, or which city department was responsible for maintaining street signs, he'd be fired.
Ignorance is a standard in music journalism, with its "journalists" repeating apocrypha, making shit up off the top of their heads, crediting people with things they didn't do, and religiously maintaining a fundamental ignorance of the practices of their supposed subject of interest. The writing wouldn't pass tests normally applied to any other kind of journalism; factual statements containing fact, temporal statements accurately reflecting time, relative statements describing real relationships, etc. There is more scrutiny for Page 6 type shit (how many times has Brittney flashed her beaver) than there is for cover stories like, "Can Rick Ruben Save The Record Industry?"
Stick to record reviews.
Wow man, I'm going to have to agree with you on this one.
As I said before,(sorry O-dub) alot of music journalists come off as pretentious no nothings. Spouting there opinions and talking more about themselves then the music. There are some people who write intelligent well written pieces, and those articles are few and far between compared to all the bullshit I see.
This Sasha guy comes off like a pitchforkmedia review. None of his points were valid, and goddamn was reading this piece incoherent as fuck. Are these journalist majors even going to school anymore?
After sloshing through that article I learned:
He is disconnected from Indie rock.
He is disconnected from Soul.
He is disconnected from Rock.
He is disconnected from reality.
If you want to hear music that sounds like soul music. Listen to Frickin' soul music.
Having now read the piece, I'm wondering what you dudes are so ass-hurt about.
It's not a work of reportage, it's not a screed... it's just a thinkpiece
Sasha is an idiot, as he's shown over and over again.
90% of the bands he's talking about aren't "indie" ("indie" is, after all, an abbreviation of independent), plus his thinkpiece is akin to thoughts one would have on the toilet and should feel embarrassed to share with others.
At least he's not alone.
Music journalism is a joke. If Sasha was covering New York politics, for example, but couldn't name a comptroller or borough chief, or which city department was responsible for maintaining street signs, he'd be fired.
Ignorance is a standard in music journalism, with its "journalists" repeating apocrypha, making shit up off the top of their heads, crediting people with things they didn't do, and religiously maintaining a fundamental ignorance of the practices of their supposed subject of interest. The writing wouldn't pass tests normally applied to any other kind of journalism; factual statements containing fact, temporal statements accurately reflecting time, relative statements describing real relationships, etc. There is more scrutiny for Page 6 type shit (how many times has Brittney flashed her beaver) than there is for cover stories like, "Can Rick Ruben Save The Record Industry?"
Stick to record reviews.
It's not journalism, though, and really shouldn't be critiqued as such. And he was pretty clear about the fact that he was using "indie" to refer to an aesthetic and body of fans rather than to independently-released music.
I don't have a sufficient investment in (or familiarity with) the music he's talking about to feel a way about it, but considering that he doesn't even seem to have a central argument, I'm not sure why people are getting mad--it really is just a conglomeration of ideas, some of which are better than others.
I agree that he's done idiotic things in the past--the way he dogged Merritt last year was silly, and just made him look like a bully. But I don't think he necessarily is an idiot, as he's written things in the past that I thought were worthwhile. He did the first really good piece I ever read on Timbaland (in the WIRE, circa 1998) and also did a Gangstarr piece around that time that I liked a lot. Even in the late nineties, there just wasn't that much good writing about rap out there and I thought his work stood out, although he may be obsolete now that that there are so many more rap fans that know how to translate their enthusiasm into good writing.
I always thought these guys represented a definite step in the right direction.
That "Ultraglide In Black" covers album they had out (did somebody post that here recently?) is a little tough on the ears in places, but I admire the concept, even if the execution doesn't always measure up. Their version of Lou Rawls' "Natural Man" is
Loved their live show the two times I've caught it. On record, I like the Gories even more than Dirtbombs.
I'm not sure why people are getting mad--it really is just a conglomeration of ideas, some of which are better than others.
Because they are dumb ideas and he really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I would expect this from random dude on soulstrut but this is 4 pages long and in the New Yorker.
I always thought these guys represented a definite step in the right direction.
That "Ultraglide In Black" covers album they had out (did somebody post that here recently?) is a little tough on the ears in places, but I admire the concept, even if the execution doesn't always measure up. Their version of Lou Rawls' "Natural Man" is
Loved their live show the two times I've caught it. On record, I like the Gories even more than Dirtbombs. [/b]
Absolutely and, to keep it in the family, I prefer the Demolition Doll Rods both live and on record to the Dirtbombs.
I'm not sure why people are getting mad--it really is just a conglomeration of ideas, some of which are better than others.
Because they are dumb ideas and he really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I would expect this from random dude on soulstrut but this is 4 pages long and in the New Yorker.
I'm not sure why people are getting mad--it really is just a conglomeration of ideas, some of which are better than others.
Because they are dumb ideas and he really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I would expect this from random dude on soulstrut but this is 4 pages long and in the New Yorker.
Great critique.
And why are they dumb ideas?
Let me guess--because you said they were dumb.
I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT MY OPINION CARRIES A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WEIGHT WITH ME
I always thought these guys represented a definite step in the right direction.
That "Ultraglide In Black" covers album they had out (did somebody post that here recently?) is a little tough on the ears in places, but I admire the concept, even if the execution doesn't always measure up. Their version of Lou Rawls' "Natural Man" is
Loved their live show the two times I've caught it. On record, I like the Gories even more than Dirtbombs. [/b]
Absolutely and, to keep it in the family, I prefer the Demolition Doll Rods both live and on record to the Dirtbombs.
Hell, if a DVD came out of Mick Collins eating Wheaties while Dan Kroha looked on, I'd buy it. That's how much I love the Gories/Dirtbombs/DDR.
I always thought these guys represented a definite step in the right direction.
That "Ultraglide In Black" covers album they had out (did somebody post that here recently?) is a little tough on the ears in places, but I admire the concept, even if the execution doesn't always measure up. Their version of Lou Rawls' "Natural Man" is
Loved their live show the two times I've caught it. On record, I like the Gories even more than Dirtbombs. [/b]
Absolutely and, to keep it in the family, I prefer the Demolition Doll Rods both live and on record to the Dirtbombs.
Hell, if a DVD came out of Mick Collins eating Wheaties while Dan Kroha looked on, I'd buy it. That's how much I love the Gories/Dirtbombs/DDR.
LOL...call me a prude but the first time the clothes started coming off at a DDR show I was a little WTF is going on!? But I got used to the duct tape nipples and Kroha in a thong/panty hose/heels combo pretty fast cause the band was so good.
Why should bands who draw their influences from folk and country be expected to be faithful to black music? Seems like the guy wants to categorize every band who uses guitars, a bass, and drums as a rock band.
SFJ is a music critic, not a music journalist. There's a huge difference between the two, especially in respect to what Bambouche was complaining about.
Anyone who creates anything for public consumption is bound to do dumb shit once in a while. That, alone, doesn't designate one "an idiot." If people read through the corpus of his writing, I don't think they'd be as quick to throw that label around.
The essay in question however is just a train wreck.
The essay in question however is just a train wreck.
Eh, it's just kind of a loose thinkpiece.
I think that most people expressing outrage that it appeared in the New Yorker are not very familiar with that publication, and seem to have confused it with the New York Times--there are other just as loosely reasoned pieces in the very same issue.
The essay in question however is just a train wreck.
Eh, it's just kind of a loose thinkpiece.
I think that most people expressing outrage that it appeared in the New Yorker are not very familiar with that publication, and seem to have confused it with the New York Times--there are other just as loosely reasoned pieces in the very same issue.
Faux,
I have to disagree with you here: sure, it's a think piece but it is, by far, the broadest one that Sasha has ever written for the New Yorker. It's also a thinly veiled combination of manifesto and "big idea" take on 20th century American music. As such, I don't think it can/should be read as "just some shit he's thinking about" and more to the point, it absolutely opens up the piece for a critique of those said ideas.
It's just such a crazily ambitious piece that I think suffers for that grand scope. I was talking about this with a bunch o' colleagues this past week, most of whom write in the same circles as Sasha (albeit, not for the NYer), and there was a collective round of dismay at the piece. It's really NAGL.
i'm with odub, i like to clown indie rock as much as the next dude whose 'hearing about it' to 'listening to it' ratio is way off balance but this was just ... sayin nothin.
what this thread could use is a controversial ilx post:
the more i see the ilm apoplexy the more i think leaving in the word 'miscegenation' is where sfj gets it right, despite himself. i think king elephant in the room is BLACK GUYS Frickin' WHITE WOMEN, hence the silly anxiety about him and his buddies being rendered sexless by proxy(why he insists on using a subset of a subset of dewy wimps as his proxy i can't quite figure, but that's his problem. also, i say that as a fan of many said dewy wimps; his other contribution is pushing me to give neon bible a listen, quite good so far).
-- tremendoid, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 18:08 (Yesterday) Link
temendoid i don't get what you are saying. is that some kind of unconscious freudian racism?
this just strikes me like those conversations about how white america was afraid of elvis' hips -- they were just as afraid of him legitimizing the black dicks that the music still represented more like.
and you took it the logical step further but yeah. we can argue the accuracy of sfj's descriptors and drag in sales numbers, counterexamples, etc. but once we get past how foolish the article is we're left debating the state of sfj's mind, and maybe others like him. i think he's using rhythm, syncopation et al as a stand-in for 'balls' and he wishes white guys with guitars would be perceived as exemplars of(or at least default to) his version of cool like they were 'way back when' instead of ceding that space to others, and for some reason he thinks using 'black musical elements' is the only way towards doing that. it's silly cos instead of waiting for arcade fire or whoever to move in his preferred direction he could just decide to identify with whoever is doing that, and that could be black people or whoever in a perfect world but plenty of white people fit the bill, that's what stumping me. i honestly think he's got a wonderfully passive-aggressive essay in him addressing indie fan attitudes but until he decides to write it he's incapable of anything more clear than this with regard to this 'issue'.(i should talk i know, but i don't get paid for this shit)
-- tremendoid, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 19:01 (Yesterday) Link
i'm with odub, i like to clown indie rock as much as the next dude whose 'hearing about it' to 'listening to it' ratio is way off balance but this was just ... sayin nothin.
what this thread could use is a controversial ilx post:
the more i see the ilm apoplexy the more i think leaving in the word 'miscegenation' is where sfj gets it right, despite himself. i think king elephant in the room is BLACK GUYS Frickin' WHITE WOMEN, hence the silly anxiety about him and his buddies being rendered sexless by proxy(why he insists on using a subset of a subset of dewy wimps as his proxy i can't quite figure, but that's his problem. also, i say that as a fan of many said dewy wimps; his other contribution is pushing me to give neon bible a listen, quite good so far).
-- tremendoid, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 18:08 (Yesterday) Link
temendoid i don't get what you are saying. is that some kind of unconscious freudian racism?
this just strikes me like those conversations about how white america was afraid of elvis' hips -- they were just as afraid of him legitimizing the black dicks that the music still represented more like.
and you took it the logical step further but yeah. we can argue the accuracy of sfj's descriptors and drag in sales numbers, counterexamples, etc. but once we get past how foolish the article is we're left debating the state of sfj's mind, and maybe others like him. i think he's using rhythm, syncopation et al as a stand-in for 'balls' and he wishes white guys with guitars would be perceived as exemplars of(or at least default to) his version of cool like they were 'way back when' instead of ceding that space to others, and for some reason he thinks using 'black musical elements' is the only way towards doing that. it's silly cos instead of waiting for arcade fire or whoever to move in his preferred direction he could just decide to identify with whoever is doing that, and that could be black people or whoever in a perfect world but plenty of white people fit the bill, that's what stumping me. i honestly think he's got a wonderfully passive-aggressive essay in him addressing indie fan attitudes but until he decides to write it he's incapable of anything more clear than this with regard to this 'issue'.(i should talk i know, but i don't get paid for this shit)
-- tremendoid, Wednesday, 17 October 2007 19:01 (Yesterday) Link
Comments
Sasha is an idiot, as he's shown over and over again.
90% of the bands he's talking about aren't "indie" ("indie" is, after all, an abbreviation of independent), plus his thinkpiece is akin to thoughts one would have on the toilet and should feel embarrassed to share with others.
At least he's not alone.
Music journalism is a joke. If Sasha was covering New York politics, for example, but couldn't name a comptroller or borough chief, or which city department was responsible for maintaining street signs, he'd be fired.
Ignorance is a standard in music journalism, with its "journalists" repeating apocrypha, making shit up off the top of their heads, crediting people with things they didn't do, and religiously maintaining a fundamental ignorance of the practices of their supposed subject of interest. The writing wouldn't pass tests normally applied to any other kind of journalism; factual statements containing fact, temporal statements accurately reflecting time, relative statements describing real relationships, etc. There is more scrutiny for Page 6 type shit (how many times has Brittney flashed her beaver) than there is for cover stories like, "Can Rick Ruben Save The Record Industry?"
Stick to record reviews.
Wow man, I'm going to have to agree with you on this one.
As I said before,(sorry O-dub) alot of music journalists come off as pretentious no nothings. Spouting there opinions and talking more about themselves then the music. There are some people who write intelligent well written pieces, and those articles are few and far between compared to all the bullshit I see.
This Sasha guy comes off like a pitchforkmedia review. None of his points were valid, and goddamn was reading this piece incoherent as fuck. Are these journalist majors even going to school anymore?
After sloshing through that article I learned:
He is disconnected from Indie rock.
He is disconnected from Soul.
He is disconnected from Rock.
He is disconnected from reality.
If you want to hear music that sounds like soul music. Listen to Frickin' soul music.
- spidey
It's not journalism, though, and really shouldn't be critiqued as such. And he was pretty clear about the fact that he was using "indie" to refer to an aesthetic and body of fans rather than to independently-released music.
I don't have a sufficient investment in (or familiarity with) the music he's talking about to feel a way about it, but considering that he doesn't even seem to have a central argument, I'm not sure why people are getting mad--it really is just a conglomeration of ideas, some of which are better than others.
I agree that he's done idiotic things in the past--the way he dogged Merritt last year was silly, and just made him look like a bully. But I don't think he necessarily is an idiot, as he's written things in the past that I thought were worthwhile. He did the first really good piece I ever read on Timbaland (in the WIRE, circa 1998) and also did a Gangstarr piece around that time that I liked a lot. Even in the late nineties, there just wasn't that much good writing about rap out there and I thought his work stood out, although he may be obsolete now that that there are so many more rap fans that know how to translate their enthusiasm into good writing.
He was a Fellow in the National Arts Journalism program at Columbia a few years ago. He is not lacking credentials.
Loved their live show the two times I've caught it. On record, I like the Gories even more than Dirtbombs.
Because they are dumb ideas and he really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I would expect this from random dude on soulstrut but this is 4 pages long and in the New Yorker.
Absolutely and, to keep it in the family, I prefer the Demolition Doll Rods both live and on record to the Dirtbombs.
Great critique.
And why are they dumb ideas?
Let me guess--because you said they were dumb.
I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT MY OPINION CARRIES A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF WEIGHT WITH ME
Hell, if a DVD came out of Mick Collins eating Wheaties while Dan Kroha looked on, I'd buy it. That's how much I love the Gories/Dirtbombs/DDR.
Which DDR do you recommend? I had a few 7"s of theirs I liked, but I traded in an album of theirs that just never clicked with me.
What about some of their extended-family releases... the Andre Williams record(s?) on which various Gories/Dirtbombs/DDR folk back him up, etc?
I must state that I didnt like the King Khan and BBQ show AT ALL...thought they sucked donkey balls, but this new LP/Band of his is top fuckin shelf.
Andre's Silky is pretty good.
Blacktop's I Got A Baaaad Feelin' About This (w/Mick Collins) is a good one as well, although like the early Dirtbombs, it's far more atonal.
This is the one w/ "Stanky Pussy,", etc? I remember liking that record a lot.
LOL...call me a prude but the first time the clothes started coming off at a DDR show I was a little WTF is going on!? But I got used to the duct tape nipples and Kroha in a thong/panty hose/heels combo pretty fast cause the band was so good.
"Pussy stank...and so do marijuana!" Yeah, that's the one.
*sigh*
Well, nobody's claiming that it's on a par with "I'm So Sinsurr" blog entries of days past...
Back in those days we recorded our thoughts on indie rock by using sharpened sticks to scrape them into the mud.
"Obv"
Anyone who creates anything for public consumption is bound to do dumb shit once in a while. That, alone, doesn't designate one "an idiot." If people read through the corpus of his writing, I don't think they'd be as quick to throw that label around.
The essay in question however is just a train wreck.
Eh, it's just kind of a loose thinkpiece.
I think that most people expressing outrage that it appeared in the New Yorker are not very familiar with that publication, and seem to have confused it with the New York Times--there are other just as loosely reasoned pieces in the very same issue.
Faux,
I have to disagree with you here: sure, it's a think piece but it is, by far, the broadest one that Sasha has ever written for the New Yorker. It's also a thinly veiled combination of manifesto and "big idea" take on 20th century American music. As such, I don't think it can/should be read as "just some shit he's thinking about" and more to the point, it absolutely opens up the piece for a critique of those said ideas.
It's just such a crazily ambitious piece that I think suffers for that grand scope. I was talking about this with a bunch o' colleagues this past week, most of whom write in the same circles as Sasha (albeit, not for the NYer), and there was a collective round of dismay at the piece. It's really NAGL.
what this thread could use is a controversial ilx post:
uh....huh?