Welcome to "Why We Fight", Pitchfork's latest column. The ongoing goal of this column is to look seriously into our conversations about music: how they work, how they locate what's at stake when we make allegiances to different artists or genres, and the different issues-- like social class, race, novelty, and transgression-- we bring to bear when we talk about music. These conversations might be "about" music, but they say even more about how we see ourselves and the world. More importantly, they might even change the music itself-- both how it's made and what it winds up meaning to us.
Of all the ways technology's changed how people relate to music-- how we make it, listen to it, hear about it, pay for it (or don't)-- the one that's always amazed me is the way we talkabout it. For most people, that conversation hasn't changed: we still get word-of-mouth recommendations, share circles of taste with our friends, and don't waste time obsessively tracking what's going on beyond our interests. For many music geeks, though, all that's been joined by an online world where "everyone" hears about "everything" at the same time-- every development tracked like breaking news and hashed out in reviews and comments boxes, on blogs and message boards.
I tried to read more, honestly. But my eyes had completely glazed over. You might want to best me, here - take the Pitchfork challenge! Get to the bottom of this excruciatingly badly-edited exercise in navel-gazing without ripping your own eyeballs out and feeding them to the local possum. Best of luck. Here's the link.
This doesn't mean people should just be "nice." People who dislike things should say so, and any artist who puts out a record should be prepared for the fact that not everyone will love it. This is just life, and there's no good alternative to it: Scenes in which every artist is uncritically considered a special, fragile snowflake tend to get really cruddy really quickly. But when you get to the point where you're wary of any band that seems to think it's actually doing something cool-- even when that act's only gotten as far as selling a couple of hundred singles-- you're halfway to kneecapping any opportunity for bands to actually be cool.
Aaargh! Nurse, quick! The screens!
I read that and thought of you Everett. I also thought about how much of that article I could read before the blood from my slashed wrists drained enough of my life away to reach unconsciousness. I reckon I could make maybe 4 paragraphs?
ReplyDeleteThat PF article could use a bit of MS Word "auto-summarise" action. Though, I just tried it, and it still was fucking boring.
ReplyDeleteYou fucking star.
ReplyDelete(from Facebook)
ReplyDeleteCeline Lux and Roy Burns III like this.
Celine Lux
Well, I'm reading it now, call it morbid curiosity. I'm surprised you are even still interested in Pitchfork... I know, I know, you might say "know your enemy" or keep an eye on the concurrence. Truth is Pitchfork was always trying to fart higher than their bumholes when they started and now it seems they can't even manage to acknowledge the scent ...
See more
Today at 00:13 ·
Celine Lux
Ok, I admit skipping sentences... The main thing that comes out of this article for me is the amount of fluff it contains. Technology hasn't changed the way we listen to music: we still use our senses. The internet hasn't changed the way people access information, it's made it faster. Not everyone feels the way Pitchfork feels about music and for the world to be reduced to "a high-school kid in Montana [talking] about how sick she is of minor trends in Williamsburg" is insulting. USA are not the centre of the world.
Growing up in France, Europe, I can safely say that I was NOT "just figuring out how [I felt] about music in relation to our friends, enemies, scenes, or schools" and I'm certainly NOT "also figuring it out in relation to a whole far-flung network of people who share [my] taste." This state of mind is reductive and close-minded. Diversity in my social life is a key to its success, why would I surround myself with replicas of me?
...
Today at 00:28 ·
Andrew Bentley
THIS BLOKE WILL MAKE YOU WANT TO PUNCH THE SCREEN IN ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSk2vCvLkKY
you should rename your PHD - "SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON WITH MUSIC JOURNALISM?"
Today at 00:28 ·
Celine Lux
... Pitchfork also seems to lose the focus on "why they fight" when suddenly switching to dissecting Joanna Newsom and Lady Gaga's trade.
"As an experiment, think on this question. Over the past few years, who have you seen fiercer, more divisive debates about: Joanna Newsom or Lady Gaga? I'd guess that for a lot of you reading this, the answer is Newsom. Which is interesting, especially if you think about ways these artists are mirror images of each other." WTF? Truth is, most people's first reaction would be "who is Joanna Newsom?". Not being funny but do we really think the bus driver would have heard of a harpist-unicorn-riding artist or would he have seen grotesque pictures of Gaga in every tabloid available? I rest my case.
As for the self-consciousness featured in Newsom's art, what's that got to do with Pitchfork? Puzzling to say the least.
I will continue to fight for artists I believe in by writing in my own zine, ignoring the sirens of advertisement and hype. Nuff said.
Today at 00:33 ·
Boz Boswell
http://www.facebook.com/afantano
ADD. AS. FRIEND.
Today at 08:51 ·