Liz Phair's Letter To The New York Times

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

! LIZ PHAIR
Chicken Little's Tale
To the Editor:

Re "Liz Phair's Exile in Avril-ville" by Meghan O'Rourke
[June 22]:

Once upon a time there was a writer named Chicken Little.
Chicken Little worked very hard and took her job very
seriously. Often, she even wrote. One day, just as Chicken
Little was about to have an idea, she heard something
falling on her roof. "The sky is falling! The sky is
falling!" she shrieked, spilling green tea and vodka all
over her work station. This commotion awoke her three
readers, who lived with her in her hut, and all three
rushed outside to see what had happened to the sky. After
enduring several anxious minutes alone, Chicken Little was
relieved to see her readers return. "Oh, Chicken Little, it
was just the trees dropping their buds on a beautiful
spring day," they said. Chicken Little tried not to show
her disappointment.

Not long after, as Chicken Little was poring over some back
issues of other writers' material, she felt another idea
about to form in her mind. "Truth . . . no . . . Lies . . .
no . . . ummm . . . ummm . . . Conspiracy!" She was just
about to write this down, when a great clattering and
scraping began above her head. Clutching her PC to her
breast, she swung her head wildly to and fro. "The sky is
falling! This time, the sky is falling! The sky is
falling!" She meant to alert her readers. She felt very
responsible for them. They played outdoors, mostly, and had
very open minds. The three readers rushed back into the
hut, very concerned, and when they saw the look of dread on
Chicken Little's sweet face and her finger pointing
skyward, trembling, they immediately turned around and
rushed back out to see what was the matter. For a few
breathless moments, they could neither confirm nor deny,
then they all saw the same thing at once. class="Movie" idsrc="nyt_ttl"
value="195942;143145">"Chicken Little," said
the readers, "it's only two squirrels chasing each other in
amorous conquest, skittering over the eave of our house."
"It's quite funny, actually," added one of the readers,
"you should come and see." But Chicken Little was annoyed.
"I have work to do!" she fumed. "Besides, I wasn't speaking
to you. I was performing a haiku," she fibbed, faxing
something.

Well, time passed, and the readers grew, and so did Chicken
Little, but not very much. The light inside the hut was
dim, and she worked in a huddled position for long hours.
She grew paranoid. She began to think she wasn't sure
anymore. She began to fear she didn't know. Then, just as
her resolve was nearly wiped away clean, she heard a sound
that was not very loud. She cocked her head from side to
side, her little neck pouch jiggling, and pecked at a few
pebbles lying around her desk. Yes, the sound was
definitely there. In fact, it was coming from all sides
now, the sound of a million tiny things dropping on her
roof. She peeked out her window and saw a million tiny
things dropping from the sky. All her chicken senses
gathered in supreme vindication. She opened her throat as
wide as it would go and crowed, "The sky is falling! The
sky is falling! By God, any moron can see the sky is
falling!"

The peacefully sleeping readers were aroused, but did not
pay attention anymore, so used to her hysteria were they by
now that her crowing became one more familiar noise in the
chattering nighttime forest.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Chicken Little
screeched, terrified they would not heed her and would be
found the next morning, buried among the intellectual
debris. She pecked and pecked at them with her sharp little
beak until they finally agreed to be awakened. The three
readers rose up and shuffled outside to be greeted by a
warm, summer rain falling steady as a heartbeat, wondrous
and quiet as unexpected relief from pain. "Why, Chicken
Little," said one reader, "it's only a summer shower come
to feed the land. It feels great!" Chicken Little cowered
in the corner as a fork of lightning licked the trees.
"It's dangerous!" she cried, "you could slip on the
wetness! You could catch a nasty cold! You could get
electrocuted!" The three readers laughed, and went back out
to experience the mystery of the storm, without thinking,
without deconstructing, without checking what the other
would do first. "Listen to me! Listen to me!" cried Chicken
Little, as she watched their backs turn. The three readers
stopped at the door and called out before leaving: "C'mon,
Chicken Little. Hurry up, you're gonna miss it!"
LIZ PHAIR
Manhattan Beach, Calif.
Meghan O'Rourke's
review of Liz Phair's new album, "Liz Phair," is online at
www.nytimes.com/lizphair.

― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 21:59 (twenty-two years ago)

That'll show 'em! um, discuss.

― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:01 (twenty-two years ago)

"her three readers" = pretty f'ing disingenuous if you're writing a letter to the editor of the NY Times

― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:10 (twenty-two years ago)

and now that I've read the whole thing...um, wtf?!

― M Matos (M Matos), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:11 (twenty-two years ago)

that letter was brilliant..

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe she was always at a Prince-level of insanity and we just didn't know it...

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm torn between WTF and brilliant.

― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

in that state, which is the best state to be in, brilliance always wins.

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

She wrote something like this to Spin a decade ago. I'm stuck between What The Fuck and What The Fuck Ever.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

over-intellectualising sucks the life from rock'n'roll.

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)

what was in Spin? was it about the 3 bears and their porno empire?

― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:17 (twenty-two years ago)

it was something about a guy with a big bat. much shorter metaphorical tale than this one (maybe Spin edited it).

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

over-intellectualising sucks the life from rock'n'roll.

Then explain dave q, mister.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

the letter is pretty funny

over-intellectualising is not the problem with meghan o'rourke's review

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

the closest to a non-pathetic retort-from-the-artist letter I can think of is when Will Schwartz from Imperial Teen noted that they were the only band who made Spin's Top Ten albums of the year but didn't get included in the year's TOP 40 Most Vital Artists Of The Year, and he wanted to know how they could be more vital.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

3 bears and their porno empire sounds more intriguing...

dave q is stuck permanently in those wtf and brilliant moments, the only person o here who does that, i can't explain dave q. why he isnt writing bizarre peons to rock'n'roll in the village voice is beyond me?

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

bah i tried to link to my wire piece on artistic contract-breaking but it's not up at the wire site any more

anyway cf geffen suing neil young for failing to make properly neil young-like records

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

imperial teen = could they be anymore friggin' dull? christ, even the letter is representative of their music. can i have a hall pass, please mr jones, rock'n'roll critic?

i would like to read that mark.

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

it's definitely gone, they've reorganised the site

i'd put it up on stone lanes but of course i haven't got an electronic copy

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

hey mark, that thing i did about bang is really funny. i've been getting hate/love mail. who is toby young though and should i be worried about those comparisons?

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

"little neck pouch jiggling" is an inpired touch.

― scott seward, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

the letter is funnier than the article!!!

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Is there something particularly wrong with an artist recognizing a review for what it is these days? It's just a review. I mean, I love Momus. I Love Liz Phair, even. But, there is something deeply disheartening about artists who let the words (no matter how poorly informed or downright incorrect) of critics get to them. We all want to be loved too much. Unless someone says something that's harming the artist or someone the artist loves... cue the Lynn Hirshburg and the Cobains fiasco... then why bother? Isn't it just like stirring in shit?

― maria b (maria b), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)

toby young is an obnoxious and rather dim writer who helped found modern review w.julie burchill, parlayed its fall into a minor career in media here, realised this wz stalling, moved to america to parlay being an english hipster into new york in a minor career in media there, realised THAT wz stalling, and moved back to london to write a book abt his travails which i can't remember the title of (how to lose friends and alienate people?)

if they are saying you are somehow the new he, then they are either being cheeky or they are even dimmer than toby young

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:38 (twenty-two years ago)

HA! I was getting the Toby Young line from music industry people. I think it was cheeky and dim. My next thing is funnier. 'My Fear and Loathing of Making Small-Talk with Celebrities'

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:41 (twenty-two years ago)

this is how the net will destroy old-fashioned journalism — it turns everything into a thread (= a good thing)

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:42 (twenty-two years ago)

i will send you it when it is done, mark. boy, i'm getting s*nny into alot of shit, apparently. it's hilarious, obviously. s*nny has gotten death threats by a certain singer of a certain band about a certain article...

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

he is going to be gunned down if he ever sets foot in manchester again!!!

― doom-e, Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Liz is too highly regarding of herself by half, Dave Q is a genius full stop, and that's about that.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)

(Mark, are you sure? I read that article recently. Neil Young et al?)

― Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:49 (twenty-two years ago)

well i couldn't find it just now, the site's all fancy

― mark s (mark s), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:53 (twenty-two years ago)

(Yes, you are sure. I just checked.)

― Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Hehe, doom-e, there was another thread on 'onetouchfootball' on the back of your Bang rant! People are so sensitive sometimes.

― Cozen (Cozen), Sunday, 29 June 2003 22:59 (twenty-two years ago)

publicity stunt

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 01:42 (twenty-two years ago)

ie. what were the odds the ny times were gonna bother to print her name again this (or next) year?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 01:44 (twenty-two years ago)

when her album tops the list of all the music critics in late December, duh!

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 01:47 (twenty-two years ago)

i doubt that i would vote for the album, but if she put it to music i might vote for the letter.

― scott seward, Monday, 30 June 2003 01:49 (twenty-two years ago)

She kinda did. Her new record really self-consciously screams "Don't think! Just let me toy with your baser instincts!" Which is fine, to a point.

But she does regard herself much too highly. I know this much is true.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Monday, 30 June 2003 01:58 (twenty-two years ago)

somewhere Gerard Cosloy is laughing

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Kenan in Oprah-book-club-member shocka!

― amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 30 June 2003 04:27 (twenty-two years ago)

We're sorry to be concerned about what Gerard Cosloy thinks. We're sorry for Chicken Little when she always says the same thing. We're sorry Liz Phair's fable wasn't quite heavy handed enough for people to get it.

― daria g (daria g), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:11 (twenty-two years ago)

cozens, that made me laugh.... don't they get it? i'm experimenting. so i made a few grammatical errors - it's call experimentation!!!! bloody literal gits! : - )

― doom-e, Monday, 30 June 2003 05:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Kenan in Oprah-book-club-member shocka!

Eat me.

― Kenan Franzen (kenan), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:23 (twenty-two years ago)

don't say that around Oprah!

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:31 (twenty-two years ago)

so whattya want to bet she release two more albums (tops) for Capital before they drop her?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 05:31 (twenty-two years ago)

i hope liz pahir gets shot.

― faggotry (faggotry), Monday, 30 June 2003 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

can anyone give a link to this review?

can a liz phair record be 'over-intellectialised'?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 30 June 2003 10:36 (twenty-two years ago)

the url is given at the end of the piece julio, don't be so lazy

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 30 June 2003 10:37 (twenty-two years ago)

i hereby, withdraw all my comments on ilx from hereonin. i hate everybody. equally.

(wwaaaa!!! the weather is lousy, nobody is writing me back, i've gotten loads of hate mail from the bang piece (and love mail but still the HATE OH GOD THE HATE and well, i'm feel dramatic)

― doom-e, Monday, 30 June 2003 10:38 (twenty-two years ago)

why do people take to things like liz's letter and the review so badly? it's entertainment, is it not?

― doom-e, Monday, 30 June 2003 10:40 (twenty-two years ago)

i am the thread killa' - i am going to respond to every thread on ilx ever until the whole cult dies from my thread killing!!! *evil grin*

― doom-e, Monday, 30 June 2003 10:42 (twenty-two years ago)

''the url is given at the end of the piece julio, don't be so lazy''

I wasn't being lazy I just missed it.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 30 June 2003 10:44 (twenty-two years ago)

DAMN YOU ALL...DAMN YOU ALL!!!!! *mad laughter* DAMN YOU LIZ PHAIR, DAMN JULIO'S LAZINESS AND DAMN MARK S'S CORRECTNESS! DAMN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!

― doom-e, Monday, 30 June 2003 10:45 (twenty-two years ago)

sigh. sorry. i'm going to sit in a corner and quietly cry about my failed life. SIGH. apologies to all.

― doom-e, Monday, 30 June 2003 10:53 (twenty-two years ago)

you haven't killed this thread yet.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 30 June 2003 11:01 (twenty-two years ago)

i will put it down to the long list of failed attempts to 'do things', julio. SIGH. nothing to see here except a man broken by the travel route of the 91 bus - move on, move on...

― doom-e, Monday, 30 June 2003 11:03 (twenty-two years ago)

how can a man be broken by a travel route?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 30 June 2003 11:05 (twenty-two years ago)

How can a social scene be broken?

TMFTML

― TMFTML (TMFTML), Monday, 30 June 2003 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)

class="Movie" idsrc="nyt_ttl" value="195942;143145">"

amazing.

manhattan beach... *snicker*

"i was so heavy man i lived on the strand"
-black flag, "wasted" 1977

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 30 June 2003 13:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Dem metaphors we live by.

― Francis Watlington (Francis Watlington), Monday, 30 June 2003 14:13 (twenty-two years ago)

sounds to me like a letter written by a talented musician who got a little too used to the love of critics. liz seems to have thought that she could make as shitty an album as she felt like, cover herself with incredibly defensive interviews claiming that she didn't care about the reviews, and then somehow still get the critical acclaim that she's used to. despite these claims...i think this childish letter shows that liz was unprepared when people actually came out and said that her album sucked.

― tara, Monday, 30 June 2003 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Yep, a crushing review in the Sunday New York Times art section
is always a career finisher.

I could see the fallout immediately at Tower Records all the way over in Pasadena. Liz Phair was prominent in the lead display rack but
customers were shielding their eyes from it as they passed by. The
store manager was overhead to say that the Phair CDs were going to be reboxed because the Times' declaration that it was Avril-like had killed whatever buzz it might have had among the walk-ins.

Living in Manhattan Beach, Phair could not have helped but notice it, too.

― George Smith, Monday, 30 June 2003 15:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Everthing Liz Phair has said or done in the last six months has been just so amazingly disappointing. Seriously, I loved "whitechocolatespaceegg." She was three-for-three as far as I was concerned. This is a Michael Jackson-level tragedy. She's just gone insane in all the worst ways. This letter does not make any goddam sense, and that's my word.

― Tom Breihan (Tom Breihan), Monday, 30 June 2003 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

i agree tom. her new album just hurts so much.

― tara, Monday, 30 June 2003 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

also...just an unrelated side comment, but liz looks like such an asshole in those outfits and those poses

― tara, Monday, 30 June 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

....and then we find out, like the Joan Jett letter, that it wasn't actually written by the star in question.
(The weird coincidence is that the notorious "Joan Jett letter" was written by Liz Phair, and *this* one was written by Joan Jett.)

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Monday, 30 June 2003 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Jeez, guys, what's with the bile?

I read a bunch of interviews w/Phair & don't understand what is meant by 'defensiveness.' Waaah, she looks like an asshole.

Did anyone TRY to understand the letter? It's not that hard to understand. Whether or not it was an effective response to the critic is another debate; personally, I thought it was pretty damn funny. So let me see, we have a writer called Chicken Little who hides in a room reading other writers all day long, and all of these writers are hanging out in this big chattering forest. So you know, one has to get oneself NOTICED as a writer in all this chatter and so Chicken Little really wants to make some loud hysteric pronouncement, so at the slightest sound she declares a big, massive tragedy, a falling sky. Because you see, the sound could be something else, but who would notice the poor writer, if she said anything less than, "The sky is falling"? Here are some versions of "The sky is falling" that I have just thought of:
OMG, feminism is dead and I SAW IT COMING!
Rock is dead unless such and so [Axl Rose?] comes back to save it!
Look! This/that/and the other artist has killed rock/saved rock/killed her career just by making that ONE album!

― daria g (daria g), Monday, 30 June 2003 17:21 (twenty-two years ago)

if the poor writer is writing for the ny times their career's doing well enough that it hardly needs a boost from a liz phair (who?) review

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

the letter was really not hard to understand at all.
i think it was a childish response to an article that was critical (speaking of "waaaah").

― tara, Monday, 30 June 2003 17:48 (twenty-two years ago)

"want to bet she release two more albums (tops) for Capital before they drop her"

I'll bet that her "Back To The Farm Team" album she puts out after that happens will get serious praise, and "We've Got Liz Back!" will be the cheer.

― Charles McCain (Charles McCain), Monday, 30 June 2003 17:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm sure the writer's career is going along fine and yet.. and yet.. I would say to the NYT writer and those who have written similar things: Don't you feel at all disappointed to read an article or review about an artist, when said article turns out to take the most obvious, predictable, uninteresting approach possible? Don't all y'all get tired of saying the same thing to each other?

― daria g (daria g), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:00 (twenty-two years ago)

she's topped out at gold (with more airplay and positive press then she's ever going to see again) and this album (or the next or the one after) aren't going to top that = she's gone in two more albums (tops)

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:02 (twenty-two years ago)

to each other?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:03 (twenty-two years ago)

sure, which is why the NYT article basically blew. in that respect, the Liz letter is sort of funny (and it did take me awhile to figure it out, which just means I'm stupid probably). on the other hand, she couldn't have written the same letter to Slate.com for the piece Mim Udovitch wrote on the album: http://slate.msn.com/id/2084862/

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Now I have this (sleep-inducing) Cat Power song in my head:

learn to say the same thing
let us hold fast to saying the same thing
hope all is well, with you
I wish the best, for you

Yes, "to each other," I don't necessarily mean people here on ILM, I am referring more to the media.

― daria g (daria g), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:05 (twenty-two years ago)

this was for a daily daria = general audience (it might've been a bit obvious at one time for a music journal, but it's quite necessary for the times where the average reader has more important things on their plate than keeping up with the vagaries of liz phair's 'career')

that said the times article was weak, but raines ruined the arts section over there (this has his fingerprints of what 'arts stories' should be)(ie. 'zeitgeist capturers')

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:05 (twenty-two years ago)

The defensiveness comes from the pre-emptive press strike Phair launched before anyone had even heard the record, seemingly in response to P-Fork newswire alarmism about her working with the Matrix. She was basically saying, "A lot of people are going to be pissed that this doesn't sound indie at all but I never wanted to sound indie. I love pop and this is pop and who cares about you anyway." But are people really hating on the record because it doesn't sound indie? Maybe some are, but I think most of the bile is because it sounds anonymous and passionless, two things pop music should never be.

And the letter doesn't make sense mostly because she was picking on one critic while the album is pretty universally reviled. What's really going on is that almost the entire hut of chickens is running around yelling about the sky falling, and the chickens who aren't doing seem to be insisting that everything is fine largely to spite all the other chickens. And, I mean, a shitty Liz Phair album isn't the end of the world, but for a lot of us it does kinda hurt, and her public attitude isn't helping anything.

I didn't read the NYT article. Should I? Am I going to learn anything new from another negative review of this album?

― Tom Breihan (Tom Breihan), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Anthony's nylpm review said it all more succintly.

I do feel sorry for writers having to write about it though -- it is dreary and sad, it would be hard to come up with something new or interesting to say about something so meh.

― Nicole (Nicole), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

if you read the P-fork newsvine thing you're not going to get a whole hell of a lot more or different from the NYT piece, which is pretty alarmist and not all that insightful. and Nicole otm.

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh, don't be silly, I didn't take issue with the intelligence of any letter-readers, rather with the tendency to read once and dismiss, which everyone does, me included.
Nabisco started a very interesting thread about the piece in Slate.. see here..

I hardly recalling the NYT piece talking much about the album in and of itself, but I could be mistaken in that. And I would argue, James, that the NYT ought not to be in the business of recycling some zeitgeist/meme/etc created by other publications for its more general readership. I am sure they don't intend to be so.

:) Maybe I am a chicken too, I don't know. Some of the stuff I've posted around here re: Phair is out of pure exasperation at a lot of tired, old sexist cliches that have cropped up in certain articles, though surely not in all of them. I bought Guyville when I was a teenager, not long after it won SPIN's album poll, and in the crappy little town I lived in at the time, I had to go to the mall, special order it, wait a couple weeks, and pay extra to get the thing, 'cause you couldn't find a copy any other way. (Forget mail-order, my mom would have opened it first and been rather displeased with some of the song titles.) I don't much care for Avril Lavigne's music. When I first heard a couple of Liz's new singles I didn't care for them and stopped paying attention. Then I took another listen and read the lyrics and decided that, hey, perhaps this is not godlike genius, but it is certainly far, far, far from a terrible record, and what's more it's confident verging on audacious and extremely funny, and I really, really like that attitude.

― daria g (daria g), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

The weird thing about Liz's letter, though, is that the NYT article wasn't a big zeitgeist pronouncement. Yeah, it spends a fair bit of time contrasting the new Liz Phair unfavorably with the old -- but the main attitude I took from it was personal disappointment: O'Rourke clearly used to like Phair, a lot, and she misses everything that was great about her old music. There was nothing self-serving or vitriolic about it at all. In fact, I thought she did a pretty good job of elucidating Phair's musical strengths and how the new record shouldn't be understood as a betrayal of "indie cred" as much as a betrayal of her strengths (cf. Douglas Wolk's comments on another thread).

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:28 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, fair enough, Daria. I listened once and then gave up on it. And I first heard Liz Phair about five years ago when my girlfriend freshman year of college was all into her; it's not like I have a lifelong investment. But I still consider myself to be a fan, and that's why I feel insulted and taken aback by everything she's been saying in the press. Like, it's not enough that she made a bad record; now she has to get all pissy at me because I think it's a bad record. And I feel kind of insulted despite not having written one published word about it.

Or: if Jewel had made this record, I would not be upset. I'd probably be kind of happy, like, "Hey! Jewel made an album with some catchy tunes and occassional neat lyrics! I don't consider it to be actively offensive! Well done, Jewel!" But everything Liz Phair has done up till now is pretty much great. And this is most emphatically not. And I don't like how she keeps insisting that I'm wrong for talking shit, because I don't think I am.

And I don't think I'll give this record another listen. Mainly because I don't get all my music for free. My electic bill is due, so I'm pretty content to write this one off.

― Tom Breihan (Tom Breihan), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

the NYT ought not to be in the business of recycling some zeitgeist/meme/etc created by other publications for its more general readership. I am sure they don't intend to be so. - that's exactly their intention! I used to love reading the times arts section (and specifically their music coverage) becuz it didn't rehash every other entertainment media outlet, jon pareles pointed out that the times wasn't dependent on record company ads or good graces and thus could write about whatever it wanted to write about, hence coverage that was often smarter, more interesting than pretty much anyone else with a readership nearly that large (ie. robert palmer writing about sonic youth well before any of the glossies). then howell raines came in, declared the arts section a failure, and said that from now on it would be devoted to 'social exegesises of big names in the spotlight' and 'capturing the zeitgeist'.

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Has anybody ever thought for a second that maybe the reason Liz Phair might be sounding like Avril Lavigne is because Avril Lavigne sounds like Liz Phair. That semi-deadpan, slightly-bored tone.

I was in a gas station the other day buying lottery tickets and day-old donuts and the girl behind the counter had her own music on. I was ready to swear that it was Avril, but then heard some whatchoomightcall mature content and decided it was La Liz. I says to the girl behind the counter, I says "this Liz Phair?"
She says, "yup."
I says, "this her new album?"
She says, "nuh-uh, it's the first one."
I says, "how much for these donuts?"

But my point is, it's not so much Liz that's changed, gotten better/worse/whatever. It's the rest of us. And I'm not sure it's a good thing.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)

oddly, we all have tae won yu to thank for this.

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 30 June 2003 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly. I loved Liz Phair's previous stuff. And it's not that there is anything inherently wrong with singing "pop" music, but it's exactly that feeling of betrayal when an artist who is capable of something more, something that is far and away better than anything the Matrix can write for her, that makes Liz's new album so frustrating.
As a side note, of course the trashing of the new album was expected, but what I found to be even more predictable were those reviewers who seemed to feel they were being somehow subversive by crying her praises for her makeover. Of course, this is my own assumption on reading those reviews, just as it is an assumption to think that someone who trashed the album was thinking a certain thing when they wrote it, such as a "The sky is falling!" kind of mentality.
I just think the problem with the album is it doesn't do Liz justice. The fact that she used the Matrix should tell us that much. She's more than proven herself capable of writing her own music.
Pop doesn't have to be trash...maybe Liz has a good pop album in her somewhere, or maybe she doesn't, but this wasn't it.

― tara, Monday, 30 June 2003 19:26 (twenty-two years ago)

In my opinion, Pitchfork's review said it all better than I could.

― John Hurtsky, Monday, 30 June 2003 19:30 (twenty-two years ago)

By the way, I know it's unfashionable to take this line of argument, but how many other female musicians are there who manage to be a sex icon without using her body so overtly, without falling completely into the Britney-Avril etc mold? Liz exuded sexuality without doing that.

― John Hurtsky, Monday, 30 June 2003 19:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I had an issue of Details with Liz Phair looking very very hot, holding a glass pop bottle between her legs. It was hot.
I think one of the reasons you can confidently say that LP never used her body so overtly is that she has always existed in the rarely visual realm of high-end indie or whatever it's called.
I mean, I remember seeing her "Super Nova" video maybe two or three times and nothing else. So it's not like she's necessarily had the same opportunities to exploit her body. Not that she necessarily would, but it's still something to consider.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 30 June 2003 19:48 (twenty-two years ago)

? Liz exuded sexuality without doing that.
I think one of the reasons you can confidently say that LP never used her body so overtly is that she has always existed in the rarely visual realm of high-end indie or whatever it's called.
... So it's not like she's necessarily had the same opportunities to exploit her body. Not that she necessarily would, but it's still something to consider.

dudes, she's nude on the cover of her debut album, you can make out a nipple.

― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 30 June 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's not forget her coy quasi-nudity on the Exile cover art. Ca plus change . . .

― Lee G (Lee G), Monday, 30 June 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I quote myself:

I had an issue of Details with Liz Phair looking very very hot, holding a glass pop bottle between her legs. It was hot.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 30 June 2003 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

And it seems like every picture I see of her these days features her in some sort of mouth open, come-hither pose. Maybe its a bunch of wank-ready art directors who are to blame, but she keeps striking the poses.

In regards to the letter, maybe she felt better afterwards, but it doesn't help her ultimate cause. Perhaps it's a bit smarter than the average musician-to-critic "Oh yeah! Well you suck, too!" But that doesn't mean its actually smart. Actually sending it once she'd written it may be the least smart thing about the whole affair.

― Lee G (Lee G), Monday, 30 June 2003 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Huh? Can you map out the smartness continuum a little more clearly for me? I am having trouble plotting certain highlights of the Great Liz Phair Debate on there.

― daria g (daria g), Monday, 30 June 2003 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I wish Heidi Berry would try and pull off something like this, I'd be much more interested.

― fortunate hazel (f. hazel), Monday, 30 June 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

didn't she always have that pose going on in her press photos? I can't see what's all that different from this and, say, the slip-shot Rolling Stone cover in '94. the main diff as far as I can tell is she's wearing a schoolgirl-uniform-type getup that maybe caters to the Britney crowd a little more

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 30 June 2003 21:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Daria: Responding to criticism is a fool's errand, and despite the, uh, creativity of her response, she did so even more foolishly than most.

― Lee G (Lee G), Monday, 30 June 2003 22:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I just saw the video last night and personally she's hotter WEARING pants. But maybe I'm just against public undie display or something.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:03 (twenty-two years ago)

definition of a killjoy

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not against public nudity though. At all.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:20 (twenty-two years ago)

saying "blowjob"!="exuding sexuality"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:22 (twenty-two years ago)

The letter is amusing and mostly strikes the right smug who-cares-what-you-think tone, except of course: writing the letter in the first place indicates a bit of caring-what-you-think, which slightly poisons the whole thing. I don't know that there's any good way around this: life offers constant temptations to let people know that you don't care what they think, but as soon as you've opened your mouth. . .

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:22 (twenty-two years ago)

(I am finding myself pathologically unable to "take sides" on this whole issue: so she tried to make a pop record, and it's not really great or anything, and it makes you miss back when her material really was pretty great, and yet there are a couple decent tracks, and it's a decent effort. . . . Yeah. There's my review: Liz Phair made a pop record but it wasn't that great.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:26 (twenty-two years ago)

as soon as you've opened your mouth = every recent Liz Phair photo

― TMFTML (TMFTML), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Lee G: Responding to criticism is not a fool's errand, and because of the, uh, creativity of her response, she did so even less foolishly than most.

― daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 02:39 (twenty-two years ago)

ie. Lee G: nuh uh!

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 02:47 (twenty-two years ago)

The letter is fairly clever, but ultimately wrongheaded,
as are all attacks on critics.

― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 02:58 (twenty-two years ago)

But then, ifall
the world's a stage, we do have need of fools.

― daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 02:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Anyone else have any categorical imperatives for me?

― daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 03:01 (twenty-two years ago)

http://image.allmusic.com/00/amg/cov200/drc500/c500/c5001321ua5.jpg

maximize self-interest

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 03:24 (twenty-two years ago)

One of the great things about pop stars is that they don't write letters like this. Even though I liked it.

(Nabisco re other LP thread - OK I will try and hear her first album or a song or two off it maybe.)

(Actually other people can join in on this - the new single is the first Liz Phair I've heard, bar a couple of tracks from her previous album which I didn't much enjoy. I like the new single. What track should I download to convince me that her earlier stuff is better?)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 07:32 (twenty-two years ago)

For the sort of definitive quotable-classics from the first album, go for "Fuck and Run," and "Divorce Song." Also "Dance of the Seven Veils."

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

(For investigation: mashup of "Divorce Song" with "Digital Love" -- same rhythm, depressing juxtaposition.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 12:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Uh, or something like that.

― Lee G (Lee G), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 13:22 (twenty-two years ago)

LP: We all knew it would suck, and it did (according to nearly everything I've read, anyway). End of story.

I was supposed to get a promo of this, but I suppose that the one-ish per year mag I planned to write it for wasn't worth Capitol's trouble. Happily, I predict that I'll be able to pick it up for $2 used on Amazon.com within the next few months, and I do want to hear it, because even if it isn't worth $2 plus $4 S&H, something this awful still begs to be experienced.

― Raymond Cummings (Raymond Cummings), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Why'd she have to go and make things so complicated?

― Sam J. (samjeff), Tuesday, 1 July 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

two years pass...

Her self-indulgent diatribe was purile and mundane.
It left me barren and full of vile pity for all the XX chromosomed songstresses. It it is nothing short of a visceral manifesto that drowns in its own bile.
Her once brilliant star is now but a red dwarf--surrounded by inert gasses.
(Though intellectually she fills me with loathing--I'd still like to schtup her senseless--great a$$ and nice boobs)

― Dieter, Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:08 (nineteen years ago)

This Liz? she doesn't have a new record out does she?

― login name (fandango), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:12 (nineteen years ago)

xpost -- Ah Mr. McInness. So nice of you to join us.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

I know this is more than two years late but:

over-intellectualising sucks the life from rock'n'roll.

Maybe the problem is more one of over-intellectualising suck

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:16 (nineteen years ago)

liz phair was a once brilliant star? really?

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:28 (nineteen years ago)

Who's still talking about that letter?

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:52 (nineteen years ago)

Though intellectually she fills me with loathing--I'd still like to schtup her senseless--great a$$ and nice boobs)

-- Dieter (Tim-of-Richmon...), October 19th, 2005.

Me thinks this statement is not just about Liz Phair for you.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 23:54 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe the problem is more one of over-intellectualising suck

-- Hurting (Hurtingchie...), October 20th, 2005.

OTFM x 1000

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 October 2005 00:02 (nineteen years ago)

It left me barren and full of vile pity

Do empty spaces fill you up with holes?

― miccio (miccio), Thursday, 20 October 2005 00:21 (nineteen years ago)

Wait a minute! Liz Phair is ... M8RISSA M8RCHANT!

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 20 October 2005 02:04 (nineteen years ago)

Liz Phair has gone off the New York Times because of you.

― Dr. Gene Scott (shinybeast), Thursday, 20 October 2005 02:10 (nineteen years ago)

I just KNEW that if this was at the top of the new answers that Marissa had to be connected in some way.

― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Thursday, 20 October 2005 02:12 (nineteen years ago)

Pickin' Little and his BANGO doesn't value true artists

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 20 October 2005 02:15 (nineteen years ago)

I never her.

― Declan Zimmerman (Declan Zimmerman), Thursday, 20 October 2005 02:17 (nineteen years ago)

Too bad Liz Phair doesn't have CKY fans just issuing death threats. I went into a bookstore the other day and in the rear Jenny Eliscu was on a panel dressing down baby boomer critics. Guess the fatwa is over. You go, gurlz.

― Ian Christe (Ian Christe), Thursday, 20 October 2005 04:43 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.