Is everybody who writes for Pitchfork this stupid????

and that polemic the writer went on about paul sevigny wasnt quite off the mark. brain and (whatshisface) were all long haired 'rock' types, whilst paul stood around in his yves saint laurent tshirt looking completely out of place. kinda like he was slumming in his own band or that he was just in this band to hang out and be famous, not to necessarily perform or anything like that.

I agree; they're HORRIBLE live. But how does that (or what Paul What's-His-Fuck looks like) make the album any worse?? (Actually, the line above suggests you might even LIKE the album!) But we've been here before, way too many times; ditto Northern State. So never mind.

>>Chuck why did you find this review so objectionable? (He asked earnestly.)<<

Well, the 843 dumb platitudes about race and class and gender and hip-hop and age and talent it contains, for starters. (I counted.)

But, yeah, pigeonholing the entire PFork staff as a bunch of cranky music-hating self-involved funkillers is as fair as, y'know, pigeonholing the Voice music writers as a bunch of overintellectualizing music-hating self-involved polysyllabic obtuse theorists (as some of the naysayers 'round these parts have claimed from time to time) (which, in case you're curious, I think is total asscrap) (tho I'm only clarifying my position because I love parentheses).

I was just mentioning the Paul Sevigny thing because that part of the review was somewhat justified. But yeah, apparently the pitchfork crew like to make themselves out to be class warriors or some sort of indie rock guardians of equality. Unfortunately this kinda stance results in dropping the ratings of albums they review by 2-3 points.

>>Clearly children of privilege, Northern State commit the terrible fallacy of coopting street argot... Northern State sound like suburban brats playing with Ghetto Barbies.<<

..and hardcore bands who came from the LA suburbs (not to mention Long Islanders Public Enemy) have no right to be pissed off, right?

>>the album actually betrays no knowledge of hip-hop history whatsoever. Judging from the evidence presented, Northern State base their understanding of the genre entirely on the Beastie Boys.<<

(Forget that the Beastie Boys were hardly the first group to actually switch off interesting voices; if you have a REAL knowledge of hip-hop history, you'd know that that's what most pre-1983 hip-hop did!)

>>Robert Christgau-- exhibiting distinctly lecherous tendencies in his old age<<

Which is almost as idiotic a line of horseshit as:

>>It needs to be said that most of the critical ink-jizz lavished on Northern State squirts from Christgau's pen<<

Which is a blatant lie.

>>Beat-wise, the album is bland and fey, with no low-end nor hooks to speak of<<

Which basically proves the writer can't dance for shit.

I don't know about Pitchfork or the Voice, but each member of the Reader staff has been expressly instructed to develop his/her own UNIQUE system of well-argued playa-hating and ill-concealed dilettantism. It's in the contracts. They're tattooed to our ass cheeks.

(But really: are all of the lyrics on that album that dumb?)

If we decide to hire you...

Is this an electronic pub that really means:

If we decide to 'hire' you, be advised that 'hire' has zero to
do with the Webster definition -- 'to get the services of
a person in return for payment' with payment to mean cash
money.

>>Voice music writers as a bunch of overintellectualizing music-hating self-involved polysyllabic obtuse theorists<<

I guess this refers to Metal Mike Saunders, Scott Seward, Hillary Chute, George Smith, and Amy Phillips. (But anyway, the title of this thread was a QUESTION -- I honestly have no idea what Pitchfork's other writers are like. That's why I asked, see?) Hi George...

But, yeah, that's Pitchfork for you.

One might estimate general quality on the basis of willingness to accede to requirements for submissions.

All submissions must also include:

A list of your Top 10 favorite albums of 2002

A list of your Top 5 favorite bands from each decade (1960s-1990s)

A list of the last 10 CDs you bought

Estimate of the number of CDs and LPs you think you've owned

Boy howdy!

(& I really hope that you folks calling me out on my Voice generalization caught my parenthetical aside) (I'd hate to be misrepresented because I'm overtired) (&, in retrospect, trying to take the "don't generalize" defense is pretty uninspired & lame on my part, so I apologize for that bushleague move) (& I'll go get some shuteye)

and also, if Public Enemy had come out with lines like that Gore line (is that supposed to be ironic?), they would have no right to be pissed off.

I was actually quite conflicted about the Northern State review. I'll put it this way: if I hadn't heard Northern State, the tone of the review probably would have convinced me that I'd likely disagree with the rating. But I have heard Northern State, and, you know, yeah: not so hot, I don't think.

Mr. Diamond: could you expand on your comment? Is it that you think the Beastie Boys reference is ill-applied, or that you don't think it should be used at all? Because let's face it: the Beastie Boys may be a Northern State reference point so obvious you feel guilty even using it -- so overwhelmingly what-the-average-person-would-think that it seems to actively distract from saying anything meaningful about the record -- but dude, they sound a lot like the Beastie Boys, and saying so surely starts to draw the average reader a pretty clear picture of what they're up to. (I think his way of putting the comparison, by the way, was awfully presumptuous and way more condescending than I tend to like in reviews -- but then on the other hand, there is this small part of me that says "but they sort of do sound like that.")

I have not yet developed a coherent rationale for liking Avenue D's "The Kind of Sex that I Need" so much better than Northern State.

By the way, I think there are good reasons to dislike Northern State just musically, but yeah -- making fun of them in quite this way seems to have less to do with music and more to do with a pervasive hipsterish male fear of the flat-out earnestness of activism. Activism, especially women-heavy activism, totally requires the dropping of the arms-folded hipster attitude, and that seems to be the sort of mental field Northern State are coming out of. Yes, this is bound to irritate people who go for more critical poses -- just the same way plenty of people with various political beliefs are too cringey and possibly snobbish to actually go out and demonstrate or engage with other people who share those beliefs, out of a distaste for communal agreed-upon celebrations of simple slogans and the like. . . Rambling here, but it strikes me that the social vibe of women involved in activism is just miles and miles and light-years away from the attitude of the indie-rock guy.

I should clarify, couldn't get over the sense *from them*, etc. -- I appreciate pride in what you do and all, but still.

And, by the way... get this quote: "...all long haired 'rock' types, whilst paul stood around in his yves saint laurent tshirt looking completely out of place. kinda like he was slumming in his own band or that he was just in this band to hang out and be famous, not to necessarily perform or anything like that."

WTF is wrong with THAT?!? You've just sold me on the fucking band you twat.

Above all, the whole review is just their typical lamely aggressive tack; the unwillingness to find any kernel of goodness in the record, to pick out any of the interesting bits. And there are interesting bits. It's a fun record, it's not heavy-handed, and the "liberal" talking points are hardly legion. Mostly they talk about going to parties and Stevie Nicks and how the one girl is "so shabby chic, you want to take a peek; you know I'm making Rachel Ashwell's knees grow weak"! That's funny! Now we just need a Christopher Lowell reference and we're set! It kind of recalls an old Brand Nubian record in the way they temper the rhetoric with the good-time jams. Oh wait, they big up Brand Nubian too, so they must know that crew's great records too! Anyway, you, in your Medicine review took an evenhanded approach, generally praising the record but aware enough to indicate some areas in which the experience falls short, where you question the nature of their approach.

I mean, if your criticism of my criticism of the review is "but Diamond, it 'draws the reader a pretty clear picture' of the record"; I would say, "no, actually, it doesn't; but it does indicate the reviewer has some sort of weird misplaced rage towards this fairly innocuous white college-educated female rap record." It just reads like a college student's rant, which quite frankly I'm not interested in.

These threads are interesting to me, because it seems that the number one reason Pitchfork is easy for people to make fun of is that a lot of the reviews completely lay bare style prejudices/opinions that don't specifically have to do with the record -- last year, it was picking-on-Pitchfork because some critics would just unabashedly say they thought dance music was cheesy, full stop. This is obviously what a lot of people who share those prejudices and opinions like about Pitchfork, as well: a review like this one is less about Northern State as themselves and more about a supposed deep-down agreement between the writer and the readers that certain things are lame, and that Northern State does them.

I don't much like Northern State or ARE Weapons. But I like W.I.T., so hopefully neither of those opinions have to do with style prejudices. Now I have to go drink.

Whooooooot!
K!
Al-right!
Ahem...

Once again, I'm glad I didn't start a, um... particular thread I might have thought of, but I'll be the first one to support Mr. Chuck Eddy's good taste and solid argument. I swear I'm not bring sarcastic. I'm just real special. So anyway, not only are the Beasties the easiest reference point for the group (fuckin' DUH, ya know), but the lines quoted are taken out of context and made way more lame than they actually are in their original format. Their rhymes don't read well, cuz it ain't friggin' poetry. To me, the album's a riot. It is incredibly funny, dorky, self-conscious, self-indulgent, flows like wine, and grooves like an epileptic whore. It is incredibly fun. People would have to be rather uptight not to enjoy this album, because these are great SONGS. And that's what makes it charming, the whole package. Yes, they're white, liberal, privileged, wank spank yank...SO FUCKIN' WHAT? They're lovably quirky! They're dying in stereo for youse, maaaaaaaan! Thinking otherwise would be missing the point. I think it's funny Pitchfork will do whatever to rag on the Voice. And they grant out the honorable 0.8 to great records that tend to inspire love it or hate it rants, as a byproduct of their kitschy over the top 'uniqueness'. (Ex.: Andrew W.K.)
For an accurate review of the album, check out AMG's.
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dllp=amg&uid=CASS805132220&sql=Alb8uak3kam3l

Northern State's Hesta Prynn boasts "I'm timeless, I write when I rhyme this" on the title track to her group's debut album, and such a call is right on. The ladies of Northern State deliver funky breaks and tight grooves on Dying in Stereo, and keep the hip-hop flavor without being vulgar and crass.

Already sounds terribly gimicky. Also, terrible.

Prynn, DJ Sprout, and Guinea Love formulate their own provocative, smart rhymes similar to what Queen Latifah and MC Lyte were rapping about in the decade before, and teach current gangstas and pranksters a lesson or two about keeping things real.

Is this a parody of a review? "keeping things real"? Sounds rad!

They talk about everyday life without the violence

Because violence isn't a part of life. Plus, I think this has been done before, when the Chipmunks took on Hip Hop.

and have fun razzing on pop culture,

Pop culture references? Hilarious!!1!11!

but an underlying social awareness is there. Crafting a funkadelic, quirky kind of poetic jam is their forte, and inside their three-part Luscious Jackson-like harmonies and rough-edged rhymes, the momentum of Dying in Stereo just won't stop. Bold lines like "I'll be dressed all in black just like Johnny Cash, three-part harmonies like Crosby, Stills & Nash"

Ugh. Either the word "bold" became a synonyme for "shitty" or MacKenzie Wilson took an entire bottle of retard pills.

on "Trinity" capture their spunk, while the sultry basslines of "The Man's Dollar"

Fight the man!

are tailor-made for the independent woman and social nonconformist.

God fuck you.

They make it clear from the start that they won't be pigeonholed in terms of music or gender; check out the score on "Signal Flow (You Can't Fade Me)." If that's not convincing, the sinister edge of "All the Same" will let you know that Northern State won't be played.

Okay "won't be played"? I understand now. I get it. She hasn't actually HEARD any rap before, has he? He did catch a couple of episodes of Arseno though, and that was about enough.

They've arrived at a time where candied pop/rock could very well do that; however, Dying in Stereo finds a brassy, cool rap collective behind the mic. — MacKenzie Wilson

Either this review is terrible, or the music is. I'm guessing both.

No, yea. I should have made that clear. In no way do I sponsor ARE Weapons fandom. A vote for ARE is a vote 'gainst N. State. Or sumtn'...
"I cast you in and I cast you out." Um... :(
I just REALLY wanted to quote that line. DESPERATELY.

As for the AMG review...well, it was written by a girl...oh wai

i fear for the people of detroit

you talk about his lack of connection to hip-hop culture and then make an aresenio joke?
i fear for the people of detroit

-- jess (dubplatestyl...), July 19th, 2003.

Well, the stretch in the Arsenio joke was that it had little to no connection to hip hop but... yeah, it was a bad joke. If I could find one, I'd post a picture of the Chunk A album. . . I think that would make up for it.

Ironically enough, I'm currently listening to Hall and Oates, so yes, I am definitely the be-all-end-all Hip Hop spokesman.

this shit still isn't as bad as what ott pumps out, esp that awful the streets shit he did.

but this "authenticity" bullshit the fork pulls reeks of a confluence of indie-rockist and hip-hop male chauvanism and sneering dismissal of any attempt to deal with gender issues as not "real" politix.

d allen's posts similarly.

the reverse of this is the assumption that xgau luvs them coz they're cute -- since that's the condescending way *i* treat gurlz, then it must be the same for xgau! (goes the logic-chop)

and generally this whining for "radicalism" coming from p-fork strikes me more as a desperate search for testostero-transgressive-macho-kix than any real thought as to what politically informed music can or should be.

Also I always said that northen state came off more like barman than the beasties. (a bit tighter, granted, but similar inflections).

So here we have someone criticizing an article which criticizes an act for being collegiate, for being collegiate. What's wrong with college? I ask.

So why the pervasive suspicion?

You ever hear people say 'that is so high school'? college is only one step away.

When people say "that is so collegiate" I think there is a slightly different connotation: a different kind of immaturity, an insularity, and pretentiousness. This statement seems more anti-intellectual than the other.

d allen's posts similarly.

Well, what annoys me, from the quotes I've seen, isn't that I don't think they're "real" polix, as much as they come off as not only poorly writen, but, God Damn do they try hard to be "real politix."

And despite that it's gimicky and stupid (as I've heard it explained), if it's executed well, I may like it. I'll dl some stuff now.

And Fannypack do gimmicky and stupid better anyway.

I'm sorry. I don't think that these people are doing anything good in the world and I don't think people should like movies about monkeys playing hockey.

Is nothing sacred to you people? Honestly. Just because you listen to indie rock and you feel guilty about Guided By Voices and living off of plunder and-- this is a great big joke. You're applying some kind of ridiculous double-triple-reverse-reverse irony/opposite of irony to this whole thing and you're honestly worse than the worst people from New York City (Vice, Interpol, the guy who made Buffalo 66, whoever whoever whoever you know exactly who I mean.)

very presidential of you!

That's an awfully silly thing to think, though!

I just get worried sometimes about indie rock people saying they like movies about monkeys playing hockey and applying why-it's-okay-to-like-monkeys-playing-hockey logic to things that seem bad. Like Momus telling us why it's okay to rape women and hate poor people and stuff.

I mean, you guys have read ILM. The people who call Avril a punk are people who listen to less indie rock than the people who say she's not.

ILMers can be graded by their devotion to indie rock, kind of. There isn't anyone who's pure.

to Kenan: I like about half of the record, and the P-fork review is ridiculous for its writing, reasoning, et al, not because I disagree with it

You admit that you're talking about the writing and the reasoning in the review. My question is simply, why?

That said, I wish I had an editor. A good, caring one. I'm just as sloppy as they next guy. Maybe you should be regging on P'fork;s editors.

Oh, eat shit. You're in full-on belittling mode, aren;t you?

meaning, editors may deserve blame for letting bullshit slip them by but the bullshit, 90% of the time, came from the writer.

to ditto Blount, I like plenty of Pitchfork just fine. Scott P and Nitsuh and Dominique and Mark are all terrific writers and it's a boon to be able to read them in any capacity. I've used it plenty of times to jumpstart my own reviews or pieces when I've been stuck for ideas.

Anyway i'm being just as sensitive as you are priggish. Can't we meet in the middle somehow?

-- M Matos (michaelangelomato...), July 19th, 2003 4:03 AM. (later)" - haha, how many freelancers shuddered at this?

not always. maybe I'm wrong about this--perhaps someone who does or did write for them can tell us more--but my suspicion is that Pitchfork, being a free online publication that moves a shitload of copy everyday, doesn't exactly have the heaviest editing style on the planet. with someplace like Spin, where there's a fairly recognizable "house style," it's one thing, but it seems like Pitchfork's uniformity (which in reality probably extends to maybe 40% of the pieces it runs) comes from the writers, not from the top down.

For ARE Weapons I have a dilemma. On the one hand I like "Street Gang", on the other hand the A.R.S.E. Weapons gag has given me much simple pleasure this year and looks set to continue to do so were it not for the inconvenience of me liking them. What to do?

No one who owns a Pavement t-shirt can ever laugh at their TV again.

Can I just stare at this for a while? I want it to not make direct sense. Like a Zen koan.

Also, I can’t claim to know Ryan really well, but I have hung out with him some – in my experience he's a very nice guy & it sucks to see people taking potshots at him.

Yeah, normally I prefer to browse these threads rather than dive into them, but this is pretty unfair. Ryan's a great guy, and deserves a ton of respect (regardless of your opinion re: content) for nurturing Pitchfork to the size it's at today, largely by himself, and completely on his own dollar.

However, he does tend to lose/forget about e-mails a lot, which I suspect is what happened with you, Ned. I had a similar experience when I was hired...had to write him an angry letter to remind him he'd expressed interest in me.

I basically have the same amount of respect for Schrieber as I do Jann S. Wenner. Actually I respect Wenner's critical works a bit more. Both write ass-licking gibberish about their faves but Wenner doesn't write knee-jerk pans of bands he finds offensive. Both get decent quotes from artists when interviewing them (Wenner's Jagger and Schrieber's Interpol Q&As both were enjoyable) and both have proven successful at running unignorable music mags.

As for Northern State, I enjoy the album (probably will make my top 10 for P&J this year) but it's pretty clear Hester Prynne's the best rapper (one of them is rather wack) and I find some of the academic name-dropping kinda cheesy. The first song on the album probably is the weakest too, which that admittedly wrongheaded review DID get right.

(Bridges burn in the distance. Meh.)

Thank you, Anthony, but I've heard the ILM line on Ryan's philosophy already. Now would you mind substantiating that claim with actual (preferably recent) excerpts from Ryan's reviews? Lately, his pieces have directed more ire at the industry (rightly or wrongly...it is an *opinion* after all) and/or our own audience...though I guess you'd have to actually read the site to know that.

No, actually, the review never even implies anything about the rest of the Voice staff, only addressing Christgau's coverage. It's surprising to me that, conversely, Chuck would make the common reader mistake of assuming one person's review speaks for an entire publication's staff...if other critics don't understand this concept, I guess nobody does.

"and Xgau's a perv"

Admittedly out of line, I'm not going to defend it. But he's heard worse, from more prominent sources than the staff writer of a webzine.

Again, my problem is not that there is disagreement with the review, but that the perspective from which Idov writes is *bad writing* rather than a different opinion. If the thread title was "I Heartily Disagree with the Textbook-Indie Reasoning Behind Pitchfork's Northern State Review," fine and dandy. But is not "Wow, Pitchfork's writers are stupid!" just as bad as our ancient "people who listen to dance music are stupid!" reviews that people continue to bring up?

Are you going to pretend Mark, Dom, Nitsuh, Andy, Scott, David, and so on don't exist?

This makes absolutely no sense. As has already been speculated above, Ryan is a very hands-off editor...and Ott is too, to tell the truth. As much as you'd like to think of Pitchfork as it was in 99, there is a spectrum of different voices on staff now, from the traditional PFM indie perspective to those who couldn't care less about indie, like Nitsuh and Scott. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I think as an internet publication we have more room to express this sort of democracy of opinion, rather than possessing a clear mission like the print mags.

"I mean, is the leftover spin glibness (and quasi-ott/o'reillyisms) of the daily news soundbites a fair example of the house voice?"

News is news, reviews are reviews. They're actually almost completely separate entities at Pitchfork.

Which could well be the case, and I've heard it could be. Admittedly after my perhaps ill-judged comment now I doubt anything would really happen. ;-) Still, I wasn't initially jumping for joy when I heard about it, though I was thinking it would be a good way to 1) perhaps see if I could easily respark interest in the regular writing/pursuit of current music as such on a much more active basis and 2) talking about that in ways that didn't presume some sort of lasting us-vs.-them culture war in favor of saying, "This is good or bad and here is why" and not giving a fuck if a reader complained I either wasn't talking about something ironically or wasn't paying proper deference to some sort of accepted standard. The Pitchforkian view of the world that There Is No God But Rock and Indie Is Its Prophet (and maybe IDM is the Apocrypha) is a stereotype but one with clear roots, as RobMitchum notes -- that there IS change and expansion is a good thing and should be encouraged.

And whaddaya mean, Rob? I'm pretty indie.

Sorry, I meant more that you wouldn't fall under, as Ned puts it, the church of "There Is No God But Rock and Indie Is Its Prophet." It's actually interesting, as I definitely started writing for Pitchfork as a disciple of that philosophy, but have come out the other end more dissatisifed with indie ethos than ever. Relevantly (and obviously), it's been intelligent and polite discourse on the pros/cons of that philosophy (written by folks like you, Scott, and Tom Ewing) that have really opened my mind, rather than the "Pitchfork suxx" crowd cackling their way through the early part of this thread. And in a way, I feel like Pitchfork as a whole has been following a similar arc.

Aw man.

Dismissing something as "college" ISN'T anti-intellectual, it's just the opposite -- it implies a certain level of naivete, of experiencing/learning things for the first time and HAVING YOUR LIFE CHANGED, MAN, sinking one's teeth into the intro-class party line without reservation because it all seems so different and sparkling-new. The presumption is that once you graduate from college (or move up the academic ladder a bit) you'll learn to think for yourself more and "think for yourself" (TM) less.

Pitchfork at its most indulgently indie-pigfuck is "college" because it reads like its writers have JUST discovered Lester Bangs and have made up their minds that they wanna be That Guy (or at least a campus-celebrity crank-yanker who's loved by his wacky party-house pals and hated by townies who think he's full of shit) but have little to no understanding of the ideas going on behind the writing, or even the reasons why the writing itself was artistically successful (e.g., saying "fuck" a lot and making grand sweeping statements does not equal "good writing"; there's a LOT more to it than that and unless you ARE some kind of kid-genius you have to grow the fuck up and get out of college and actually be edited and critiqued and cut down to size and have your ideas challenged by someone smarter than you).

And this is kinda what the reviewer is criticizing Northern State for, isn't it? The ironing roxx UR all delicious.

Anyhow, I think you are Jody and I should have taken "anti-intellectual" out of my rundown of the connotations of "collegiate" above.

You are all my editors. Except I get to pick who I listen to and who I ignore.

Amateurist is just trolling as usual; obviously (as others filled in for me) I was referring to the kind of angry unreflexive writing style of someone in college, the type screed one finds in a lousy college newspaper. I was not talking about "anyone with a college education" for crying out loud.

I hope so. I've also noted how many times I used the word "fuck" in the paragraph where I stated that using "fuck" a lot does not make one a better writer.

What is that last a reference to? My Jody comment?

Actually Mr. Diamond I wasn't picking on you so much as wondering why "college" (the word alone) can have such negative connotations in this particular context. Because I don't identify that writing style with college per se; it's just one of many different styles possible in a college environment, and per Pitchcfork etc. we can see that it thrives outside of that environment as well. Indeed some middle-aged folks seem to take it as their metier.

I also agree with Jody Beth's line about being wide-eyed, naive kids just discovering...well, not necessarily Bangs, but the music we're writing about -- and by this point, the notion that not everyone in the universe subscribes to a "Pitchfork stance". Not sure what our "stance" actually is -- whatever it is has changed a lot over the past couple of years, so some of the criticisms the site recieves seem slightly outdated to me.

And chuck, I can't speak for anyone else (what a shock), but I can say that if you're looking for insight into the intelligence of the Pitchfork staff, keep in mind that at least one was considerably influenced by an old book you wrote about 500 or so "heavy metal" (I love Parliament, but come on) bands. ;)

Note: Pitchfork reviewers are paid. Ryan started this about a year ago, and writers have to stay on 6 months before they'll start receiving anything.

anyway unforced witty politix = terrorists in the usa, fbi cia kkk father father we need guidance from above somebody help us help us where is the love.

Dom, I wasn't implying that each individual writer at Pitchfork started out indiecentric and has developed away from that mindset, but rather that the site *in general* has shown that progression over the last year or so. Largely because Ryan has made a concerted effort to hire new writers that don't fit the classic Pitchfork mold, thus introducing a whole slew of voices into the mix.

tosches could do it, and very well.

As far as the whole dialogue over this album goes - I notice that, on one hand, a lot of music writers on this site & other places demand that one accord a certain degree of respect for their craft and appreciation of the talent/skill that goes into good writing. With this I agree. And critiquing others' writing certainly is part of this. I find strange, on the other hand, the total lack of, well, the slightest bit of civility in some of the exchanges and critiques made here. What is the point of calling someone stupid? Besides making yourself look bad in saying it?

It is a documentary about the Colorado Avalanche.

another ironclad old-ilm r00l.

david allen also defends it = it is irredeemably so.

(this is known as the iron budbowl)

or, alternately, just look at last years fucking winner

The only nonrock act of the day was Northern State, an all-female hip-hop trio from Long Island that borrows its rhyme style from the Beastie Boys, circa 1986. It can be fun to watch the three rappers trade lines, although it's hard not to wish the lines were better. Hip-hop lyrics may have hit an all-time low with the couplet "I'm lean, I'm mean, I'm clean, I'm not 17/ I'm the hottest girl rapper that you know you ever seen."

Ben Ratliff is pretty good, and Sanneh's usually not too bad either.

It's no secret that there's a great degree of convention about what is dumb and intelligent in music. Of course there's no point in calling someone stupid but come on! I don't trust anyone who doesn't occasionally act like a 12 year old around here. Personally I care more about the music I like than most people here. If you can't understand why someone would become very sensitive and paranoid about people being prejudiced towards non-indie stuff then you really ought to have a good long think.

It's called being passionate and I hardly think the P-fork crew are crying. Also it IS a logical position and not simply a disagreement, there's no need for rock or indiecentric criticism to whack other genres against the turnbuckle. (is this language you understand) The reverse isn't true.

This is because the reverse is borne out of a purpose and a goal which springs from passion rather than whatever inspires cheap crap jokey digs which re-enforce prejudices rather than doing anything else.

And yes I know pitchfork may not do this nearly as often as accused but as I say, there's no harm being paranoid.

This article is a bit snide in places, but it made me laugh, so I guess I didn't mind.

And I mean, I'm a feminist, lefty, liberal, what have you, and I'd much rather listen to Chingy - and I like 50 Cent a lot, there's so much personality in his music even when he's not saying anything remarkable.

this one

and

another one

Well, then he's a prog-rocker who likes The Streets, Eminem, Missy Elliott, and TLC - all of whom appeared in his Top 10 albums list for 2002.

(And I say this as a fan of lots of prog-rock myself, by the way. But MOST prog-rock, just like most prog-rap, completely loses the BEAT.) (The drums opening "Tom Sawyer" being a huge exception, of course.)

And chuck, "loses the beat"? How is criticizing prog for this any different than praising something else merely for its "complexity"?

:) I was just listening to a little more Northern State & 50 Cent rapping w/his mouth partway closed sounds way better.. flow, what happened to all the ILMers who talked about flow? I no longer think I can say much more as a criticism of NS, their music just seems kinda meh to me. One girl has a terrific voice indeed, not sure who.

fight your liberal self hate/with Northern State/they all voted for Gore/and they E NUN CI ATE!

etc. etc.

I think your comments bring up an interesting rings-within-rings observation about criticism -- within the rock-dominated microcosm of crit, the minority with interests outside of rock feel a pull towards brashness in order to be heard; meanwhile, a lot of what motivates the indie crowd to be snarky is that in the world as a whole, they're in the minority. "Personally I care more about the music I like than most people here," is practically the motto of Pitchfork, just change the context of "here."

I'm not so hypocritical to say that Pitchfork shouldn't be criticized...of course it should. I've just come to the obvious realization that intelligent, polite disagreement is going to go a lot farther towards changing minds...as I mentioned above, peaceful folks like Scott and Tom are a big reason why my indiecentrism is fading fast. People "fighting fire with fire," as it were, only fuel more standoffishness and line-drawing - are the people in this thread just trying to righteously declare that their opinion, Opinion X, is right and Y is wrong, or are they actually trying to *convince* someobody from the Y camp that they should reconsider? I'm seeing a lot more of the former than the latter, at least in the "How can someone be so stupid?" line of reasoning.

It's something I certainly need to work on with my writing, it's probably something Pitchfork occasionally needs to work on, but it surprised me to see a lot of respectable people in this thread resorting to snark and insult. Or to summarize, passion does not always have to equal quick temper.

I actually think a few prog bands pulled it off, though -- well, Led Zeppelin obviously did, anyway. But maybe also Babe Ruth and Crack the Sky and Golden Earring and Thin Lizzy, and I dunno, Focus or Henry Cow or somebody. (Wishbone Ash? Nektar? Procul Harum? Rush's new wave stuff? Yes's more rockabilly stuff? I forget.) Anyway, I have no problem with music being "complicated" (in fact, I like it, and those proggers could be damn *beautiful*), as long as it doesn't sacrifice rhythm/energy/rocking in the process. It can be done. But there's a difference between actally being complex and making music that merely symbolizes complexity -- that says "look how complex I'm being, everybody, aren't you proud?", while sitting in place with your hands folded like a goody-goody mama's boy. Which is one of the reasons I never gave a shit about "flow." Again -- there's WAY more happening in those Northern State voices than in the voices of lots of alleged flowmasters, whose voices communicate all the personality of the lint under my bed. Just like so many proggers before them.

On the other hand, I should also point out here that Northern State actually have a song ("Trinity," I think) where THE LYRICS QUOTE "ALL GOOD PEOPLE" BY YES. So they have their prog and eat it too, y'know?

I do think that certain prog has virtues--genuine virtues, not just this effette "complexity" of which Chuck speaks and which I agree can be found in much of it--that aren't consonant with what I usually take to be "rocking"--something like Tales from Topographic Oceans, for example.

So do I. In fact, I said so above. Re-read what I wrote, okay?

i think of flow more like a sense of rhythm and logic to yr. words -- you end up out of time and breaking phrases in ugly ways of you can't keep on top of the beat. and mainly i don't like to say ppl "have it" or "don't" (except when they OPPOSE it like anticon) but more to describe what sort they have.

I read this as meaning you liked a lot of prog so long as you felt it was still rocking. I was saying that I like some prog even though it doesn't strike me as very rocking. I was wondering if you meant "rocking" as simply as a synonynm of "good" or if there were certain value-neutral qualities it implied. And if so, is it useful to judge certain prog on non-rock terms? Or is that just acceding to the progger's own pretentions that they have somehow transcended rock'n'roll. (What I was sort of implying, in turn, is that no matter how odious that pretension, some prog really does deserve to be judged on non-rock terms. Perhaps.)

"or if there were certain value-neutral qualities it implied."

...and what those qualities might be, is a question I was tossing out.

I think this thread also misses that the Northern State review is textbook 'Fork snark. We do this often and valid or not, it should be no surprise.

I've done it and also not done it in the reviews I've written - I prefer writing positive reviews ("I'm here to force you to check out Supersilent ... ") to negative ones (Audioslave), and I've thought a lot about whether it's worth it to act obnoxious. I'm sure the snarking has brought us a lot of our traffic (who cares about some webzine handing out an average review of an album?). And mostly we do it to large acts - and more importantly, to large acts that we truly believe suck (again, Audioslave). I think some people find that refreshing after seeing major publications back off from slamming major albums that are totally disposable. (Please excuse the generalization, but there are rants to which RS and Spin won't stoop. Of course, that makes us sound like Fox News ... )

But as the 'Fork gets more traffic and more professional writers every week, at some point I could picture it "growing up" and phasing out the snark altogether. For example, I think Matt LeMay's Liz Phair review was very responsible and mature even as he was giving the album a perfect 0.0.

I'm not saying, Chuck, that you deny prog has virtues. I'm saying I appreciate some of it for virtues that don't strike me as having much to do with the music being "rocking"--a quality you say, in the sentence I quoted above, is necessary in the music for you not to have a problem with it.

"a quality you SEEM TO say, in the sentence I quoted above..." etc. etc.

(Sorry for overposting.)

What I'm trying to say perhaps is that while you'll answer a question with a blunt remark like "I generally prefer the stuff that ROCKS. Which is a verb.." - implying the statement can stand on its own as an explanation. And it does, certainly - I do the same thing, you know, like when telling my housemates I don't like the Chili Peppers b/c I don't like music that sucks.

Still, when someone from P-fork does as much "We truly believe Audioslave suck" it's nothing more than the same type of statement, isn't it?

:) I am thinking right now that I kinda enjoy this thread, because most of the indie kids I used to hang out with wouldn't respond to an opinion deemed unacceptable with snark and insult, but with the ever-popular withering look, eye-roll, and refusal to communicate further. Or a pointless display of cred, as in "I filmed the Dismemberment Plan on their first tour," said to me when I mentioned I wasn't quite digging their show.

Anyway, multiple writers on the Voice like Northern State - did you decide that at a board meeting?

No, because "we" is PLURAL. And I don't get who this mysterious "we" are. And what if one of "us" DOESN'T think Audioslave suck? (But yeah, to answer your question, I do understand how a group of people etc....So can you give me examples at Pitchfork where people go aganst the "we" grain? THOSE are what I'd really like to read.)

* -- (and who knows, maybe I'll have one of them review the next record, if they have something more interesting to say about why they don't like it than the person who wrote that Pitchfork review)

* -- let me guess, negative reviews of Stephen Malkmus rural prog albums are allowed, I bet. (I might be way off on this one, though.)

I left out an "isn't" somewhere in there.

We're not a unit either. If you want to think we are, I don't know what to tell you. I've written plenty of stuff Ryan disagreed with and he has yet to fuck with it.

http://www.sinomania.com/images/little_redbook.jpg

Only mag I've ever seen give equal credit to fans/haters of stuff alike: ironically, Entertainment Weekly (their Dancer In The Dark review)

Second favorite: Electric Eel's God Says Fuck You, which you give a yellow light and claim that Rocket From The Tombs is made redundant by Pere Ubu. It's the only review I saw that isn't exactly what you'd say about the album today.

That's a different question than "do you all think alike?", but it's a good point. We gave Zaireeka and Sonic Youth 0.0's. Could someone have given the new Radiohead album a 0.0? Especially since Ryan actually liked it? I honestly don't know.

You caught me, Dominique. All right, I know for a fact Nabisco says "they." TRAITOR!!!

("Yes, I sit fourth outcropping from the left, two rows in back of the Queen. You can tell me apart by the slight speckle of gray about half a millimeter from my stinger.")

they've always had some right on stuff and totally missed the boat on other stuff.

but can you really expect any mag to agree? i'd actually rather read a mag that totally disagreed with me. maybe i'll actually learn something on occasion.

i check out pitchfork pretty much everyday to at least see their numbers and see how their numbers check with mine if i've heard yon album.

as much as 1999 msp hates to admit it, pfork is useful. even when facts are wrong ... or old news... or whatever, they've still got a pretty wide coverage of stuff. and it's steadily improved over the years.

and personally, i like their tone. and maybe that's cause i'm a fanboy too. if i want stuffy, i'll read some technical articles on algorithms for minimizing render buffer latency... if i wanna hear about rock, pass me a beer, turn it up, and give me the goods.

that's all that's missing from pitchfork as far as i can tell, downloadable beer.

m.

This is ludicrous Chuck, dance music is terminally obsessed with "back in the day", whatever the genre, detroit techno purism, "house music way back in the dayyyyyyyyyyyyeah" divas etc etc etc ad infinitum. And as for complexity, well that's in the eye of the beholder generally.

I think you'll find with electronic music fans they generally judge music by whether it makes them dance or not, or whether it makes other people dance. I would say the minority fit the description above, if any at all. There's a fairly quick way in which the average techno fan decides something is good, it involves dancing to it. I think that's pretty visceral.

I won't speak for hiphop fans.

"I'm a vegetarian/ Humanitarian/ Imaginarian [sic]/ I'm a Libertarian/ The country's getting ugly and there's more in store/ But don't blame me 'cause I voted for Gore."

Silly: That '[sic]'. I can almost hear the monocle dropping into the reviewer's snifter. "My lord! I looked up 'Imaginarian' in both the OED and AHD, and it was nowhere to be found! It's not even in Webster's legendarily permissive Third Edition! I'd better throw in a [sic], so that credulous readers are not lead astray by this hip-hop group's confusing neologism." All I can say is that Michael Idov is most definitely not swass.

Wrong: It's no "I'm a Libertarian." It's "I'm NOT a Libertarian." The difference being that in the first case, she is proclaiming allegiance to the Libertarian party -- a strikingly hypocritical thing for a Gore voter to do -- and in the second, she is not. Any reviewer stupid enough to not catch this crucial (and obvious) distinction has no place writing about anything having anything to do politics whatsoever.

I could go on -- and, just for a moment, I will: if you're going to pick on Christgau's review, (which is fine, although accusing him of lechery is an awfully puritanical stance to take -- since when is rock 'n' roll, or its innumerate offshoots, not about sex appeal?) it would probably be wise to at least READ THE ENTIRE FREAKIN' REVIEW, as Xgau's mention of N. State's Roxanne Shante quote handily derails the conceit that "Judging from the evidence presented, Northern State base their understanding of the genre entirely on the Beastie Boys." Suffice to say, this reviewer is a prime example of the knee-jerk incompetence that so heavily peppers pitchfork and makes it such a dodgy source of critical thought. As for what I think of Northern State: they're okay. I like their attitude, I like their beats, and I like some of their rhymes, but I wish they wrote real songs, and none of them are Betty Boo. But a 0.8 rating is just yet another cry of "Wolf!" from a website that tends to do so far, far too often.

:( x 10

I'd guess that's because the site is now far less monolithic than it was, say, two years ago.

(Forgive my snideness.)

xpost, i know, but between work and ILM, there isn't much free time during the day, so ive got to budget it between comedy goldmines, photoshop fridays, slsk, and reviews (pfork being among them)

Northern State was fucking horrible.

Anyone who praised this album should never be employed again.

I really really hated the Northern State album and the critical praise lavished on it, but I think the review goes too far and needlessly calls them out for being what they never claim not to be (white, middle class, college educated, etc.)

That's not the problem. The problem is -- and this is just a gut feeling that I have and don't know if I can back up -- that too often white educated middle class groups try to do "clever rap," by which I mean rap music that purports to be witty and allusive, and inherently draws attention to itself for doing this, and therefore for being different from other rap. Get it? We're doing "smart rap," wink wink. There's a hip-hop group like this, or five, or twenty, on every college campus in America, a hit with friends, popular at the campus radio station, perhaps. Northern State is no better than the better ones at my own school. It's not unlike contemporary "blues musicians" who sing songs with titles like "Latte Blues." Raw-idiot-savant-artform plus liberal-arts-degree-certified-irony equals instant artistic statement and belly laughs too.

1) Professionally: Northern State make art, he criticises it. This jealousy he usually manages to hide deep within his self-effacing irony, but as soon as he feels superiority over the artist he becomes enraged, the sub-text for his anger being "that should be me, I should be on that label, these people don't deserve it as much as me!"

2) Politically: Northern State are not ashamed to be left-wing in ways more elaborate than mentioning September 11th in Trail Of Dead reviews, he is. While in his review "middle-brow" is an insult, it is his own (presumably self-identified "high-brow") cynicism that is easily the more harmful attitude. Northern State are moved to "middle-brow" action by their existential despair, which threatens the laconic solipsism of his reaction to same despair. It is the anger of the guilty at the innocent, and the need on behalf of the guilty to drag down the innocent to their own level.

3) Racially/culturally: Quick to claim that race doesn't matter, he interposes "class" in it's place, a blatant attempt to side-step the issue - and it fails. He is middle-class and white (Eastern European counts - I should know), enjoying hip-hop from a comfortable cultural distance. He accuses Northern State of patronising "the street" by "co-opting" it. The truth of the matter is that the subtle segregation (of race, gender and class) that he imposes is easily the more harmful attitude. He can forgive black rappers for making millions and flaunting it as useless jewellery and expensive labels, but cannot forgive white ones for being born with less than that and obviously feeling that inequality. Why? The latter could have been him. Like a McCarthyist lackey, he distances himself from the Communists by throwing innocent liberals in jail.

Interestingly, he also criticises Northern State for having "no knowledge of hip-hop history whatsoever." This has often been levelled as a compliment on rock bands, and while people like the Pitchfork writers have always been torn between the rockist "they don't make them like that anymore" attitude and the punk/indie destruction-as-renewal, disowning previous generations to establish new and better ideas, hip-hop has only been trendy among these people for short while, and how these attitudes translate isn't fully established yet. It seems that this writer, threatened by his paranoia over whether or not he has credibility in the field of hip-hop, decides that one can only enjoy hip-hop if you accept it as a part of a rich and diverse modern artistic landscape - in other words, it's okay for white kids to enjoy The Ramones and be as stupid about it as they like, and also okay for black kids to worship mindless gangster-rappers, but if you want to cross over YOU'D BETTER HAVE A THESIS ON IT, BUDDY.

4) Sexually: Here, Mr Idov gives himself away by accusing Village Voice's Robert Christgau of being "lecherous" in his praise of the band. It's on odd contradiction that his criticism of this band started off as trendy nihilism, he ends up moralising about attitudes to women. In truth, white journalists don't want hip-hop to embrace gender equality. They enjoy its misogyny - it mirrors their own (although their attitude to women could more accurately be summed up as "fear") and furthermore because it's BLACK misogyny they don't have to feel guilt listening to it! I'd bet my bottom dollar that if Franz Ferdinand were out-and-out neo-Nazis they'd be booed off of every Cool Indie Festival Main Stage in the world.

Really, there's no way they could have won on the sexual front. If they were riot grrrl-style feminists, Post-modern Cynicism would kick in. If they behaved like almost all mainstream female rappers do - i.e. like strippers/supermodels (the difference is in how well-known you are) - then he would call them stupid white women leaping onto the hip-hop bandwagon (because black women behaving like strippers is as little this guy's moral concern as black men treating them like prostitutes.)

Of course, if you asked this guy what he thinks about women, black people and poor people, he'd tell you he's 100% pro-equality. On a surface level, he probably believes this in his own mind. So evident, though, are his true attitudes and guilt at those attitudes that it's hard to take him seriously at all. If he thinks he's going to further racial equality by telling people they can't enjoy the music of other cultures without justifying it sociologically or gender equality by telling women they can only empower each other if they're high-brow about it, then there's something wrong with him. He suffers not only from the classic male problem of understanding women only in terms of saints (the high-brow feminist rapper) and whores (the main-stream rapper-as-stripper), but applies this same two-dimensional understanding to intellectual activity - if you're a complete moron who hates women and gays and raps about cars and money, OR if you're intelligently and subtly ironic and appreciate the history of whatever it is you're doing, then you're okay. Otherwise, you get a 0.8.

I know how to use a mailbox!

Of course, nobody is really pining to suck a critic's dick — that is, except other music critics.

But Nabisco, conversely, I don't ever want to read a review that says, for example, "Beautiful Beats" morphs into a drum machine romp with huge synths, catcalls, and guitar clicks pinched from Archie Bell & The Drells' "Tighten Up". "Wet Work" fronts an edgy guitar lead that's undermined by Davis' snare clicks and a silly synthbass squelch.

Which is the whole florid prose argument, dancing... etc. I'd agree that you more often find character assassination in bad reviews - critics tend to be offended by the musician when offended by their music, but rarely "stoop" to praise them personally for recording something good/great/groundbreaking, probably because they're concerned about catcalls of bias or favoritism or...I guess you could say that wouldn't be very "objective" but somehow critics don't see that the same holds true in beatdowns.

So is this why people like Northern State? Not because they have any exceptional skill as rappers, but because they're presented well as personas? I'm one of the people who just "doesn't hear it" but after reading XGau's glowing reviews, I got the impression that he liked the sense he got of who they were more than what they could do. (I'm not asking anyone to speculate on XGau's opinions, I'm just citing an example.)

anonimust so on the money, not for the originality of her observations, but the freshness of elocution. We all know those things to be true but here's a rich and succint statement of them.

nabisco you must know musicians have the better deal. ask any kid if he'd rather be a guitar player or a drummer or a rock critic and he'd ask what's a rock critic? ask any adult who they more fantasize about getting with and invariably they'll admit never once having thoughts of hot groupie sex with richard meltzer or lester bangs or even jim derogatis. and who wouldn't rather be paid attention to by a drunk sweaty club full of good time seekers than someone reading your opinions about music? not that there's anything wrong with being a rock critic at all but it is not the romantic calling art is

(b) Contrary to the popular belief of people who think being a musician would be awesome, having people want to sleep with you is not the pinnacle of human existence. Someday if you're lucky a few people will want to sleep with you, and you'll learn this.

What about the argument of thinking you are cool vs. doing something cool? Buying a house vs. buying a mansion vs. buying ten houses?

It seems silly to have this argument. Some people are more/less creative/analytical than others. Some people are more/less likely to take the most/least likely path to what they want. Some people like sitting at desks. Some people like getting drunk in public. ... etc etc etc.

So is this why people like Northern State? Not because they have any exceptional skill as rappers, but because they're presented well as personas? I'm one of the people who just "doesn't hear it" but after reading XGau's glowing reviews, I got the impression that he liked the sense he got of who they were more than what they could do. (I'm not asking anyone to speculate on XGau's opinions, I'm just citing an example.)

Dahlen raises a valid issue about persona -- one I think I personally started to think about when I wrote about how much I couldn't stand Jim O'Rourke's music, in part b/c I couldn't stand him personally. Image and pop obviously go a ways back. But with celebrity culture dialed to the max, and persona increasingly supplanting (as opposed to complementing) the music as the main attraction, one does start to wonder when the time comes to just call bullshit. I mean, even after watching Tupac Resurrection last night on Showtime (and enjoying it), I'm not about to start combing the DC record stores for his record-breaking number of posthumous releases. And I'm not losing sleep over it, either.

As sort of a tertiary point, seeing Tupac Resurrection last night on Showtime made me want to start a "Tupac Mythology: C/D?" thread — only, I don't know his music for shit and I was certain the likes of John Darnielle would shame me for life.

yes

There is a reason people have been driven to create for as long as human beings have existed in the form we know them today. Rarely has it been illuminable via "objective standards." Still, I'm sure it's entirely true that not only will post-modern cynicism buy you a bigger house, but help you to appreciate it.

“I’m terrifically guilty of trying to describe music in that instrument-by-instrument way: I feel flashes of duty that way. (I think there’s also a tendency—especially if you’ve worked on any music yourself—to forget that plenty of listeners really don’t break the sounds down at all and just take in the effect; less so with a lot of indie rock-band types, but still.) “

One of the nice things about not being a particularly talented musician is that you don't break the sounds down. It means a lessened appreciation of certain types of music, but a much greater appreciation of music generally.

This is why professional music reviews and reviewers mostly annoy me - everything is judged either historically or technically. You rarely hear someone who knows how music is made in detail talk about the effect, say, Loveless has on a person. All you hear is that Kevin Shields was a visionary, or that the album reaches new heights in such-and-such-a-genre, or conversely that Kevin Shields isn't a visionary and he's only doing what such-and-such a band did ten years earlier, and that all his technical advances were made by such-and-such anyway, blah blah blah...

The best reviews are always amature because professionals only KNOW about music, an amature is in a better position to appreciate it. I don't mean this in the sense that because they're a normal person they can tell what normal people will like, I mean it in the sense that comedians stop laughing at other people's jokes after a while and simply notice when something is funny or when it isn't - surely the point of comedy is to make people laugh.

A good review should be about the music, but not broken down into instruments. A good review will describe music poetically - with imagery rather than over-used, value-based adjectives, and metaphore rather than comparison, noting shifts in mood and texture rather than chord or instrument. I'd always prefer to read a review of music than of musicians, but the various breeds of cynicism that pervade almost all music publications, and certainly all of the widely-read ones, deny journalists the ability to write reviews in any style other than "how does this band fit into musical history?"

It's a fair point. For the record I don't think all music criticism is a bad thing, I only complain about the way in which most people do it and the various institutions that have grown from it. The truth is my overly-long attack on the pitchfork guy was an attempt to keep a genuinely important essay at bay.

I think my main point is that what I wrote can stand as a general criticism of the attitudes and methods of Pitchfork, and is the only one I will ever write. This guy, on the other hand, churns out his crap for a living. While other people spend their lives putting off essays and striving to understand the underlying essence of the universe through art - using the poetic rather than the logical to achieve the absolute - this guy spends a good part of his time thinking about whether this or that indie band/corporate rapper can be held above the other indie bands/corporate rapper due to the fact that they sound more or less like whichever older indie bands/corporate rappers are most popular at the time.

For anybody who's wondering - I love The Cure, and have not had any significant breakthroughs since age 15. Thankyou.

I suppose there's always a black-metal fan around the corner armed with too much hyperbole and not enough knowledge, but there's always good poetry and bad poetry, and certainly good poetry is always based on a certain amount of knowledge about the subject. Like most things, it ends up as a question of balance - and at the moment there's just way too much weight on the "historical and cultural analysis" side, and nowhere near enough on the "pretentious imagery" side.

BINGO. Plus, I'm lazy and generally read most reviews for information, not to be entertained by the critic (although it's great bonus, when it happens obv).

Buying a house, I've concluded, is overrated.

you have indeed reached the right message board then.

also, feel free to ignore this and all other of my posts, thanks.

I take issue with this -- there is SOME truth to it, but it's silly to assume that because I know what each instrument is doing that I can't drive 80 on the highway smacking the steering wheel to AC/DC like anyone else. Sure, it's a danger for musicians that they might fall into a purely analytical way of listening, but it's not inevitable, and musicians can relearn to hear like the people do.

As someone who's been fascinated by music since childhood, it's hard for me to understand why anyone who wants to write about music wouldn't WANT to learn a little more about what's going on. I always felt compelled to learn -- if something really made my ears dance I wanted to understand it better. That doesn't mean, of course, that you have to spend too much time talking about it in reviews.

http://pitchforkmedia.com/features/weekly/05-08-22-the-chumbawamba-factor.shtml