Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Ryan Pitchfork crawls out of his indie cave

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I'm only starting this thread because it was inevitable. On today's Pitchfork, Ryan Schreiber admits that a lot of chart-pop is quite good and then suggests an "80-minute mix of some of the best and/or most innovative pop hits of the past three years" (with commentary!). You can be cynical about the way he uses indie touchstones to validate the pop (comparing a Destiny's Child tune to an "Oval-processed Brian Wilson melody") but in general, I think it bodes well for the site. (Apparently, more singles reviews are ahead.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 4 August 2003 14:58 (twenty-two years ago)

that new layout is hideous, they should've stuck with the blue.

― Felcher (Felcher), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/thomas/Tub_and_Toaster_small.jpeg

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Incidentally, former pop music webzine Freaky Trigger is relaunching this week. It's all Blakes 7 and squirrel recipes now, mind.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)

haha, ILM was quasi referenced on pitchfork!
"The Mountain Goats' John Darnielle recently came up with 100 reasons why this song is "so damned great" for his literary journal, Last Plane to Jakarta."
it almost seems like ryan's been lurking here for a while trying to figure out how he can please this board.

― Felcher (Felcher), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)

ryan DOES lurk here.

i have officially found something even stupdier than the last stupidest thing i found on pfork:

Commercial pop, hip-hop, electroclash, mash-ups, dancepunk-- it seems whole genres are increasingly gearing themselves more towards producing great singles than great albums.

um...uh...um....help?...

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

As a proof-that-pop-is-great mix, this is very good by the way. All killer no filler. Leans heavily on the 'check out the production on THIS' argument of course, but that's how I made my converts too and it generally works.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

a pinball-random vocal more abstract than the last New Pornographers album seemed on first listen. Like an Oval-processed Brian Wilson melody belted out by the sweetest dew-voiced quartet.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Check you email strongo!

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

STRONGO ME CHECK WRITING MACHINE

― (sorry) (nabisco), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

mailed you back, tom.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

You guys talking behind our backs?

― Mark (MarkR), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

tom is telling me where he's registered for the wedding.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes of me and Ryan. Sorry Isabel but this guy's pop conversion has me all a-flutter!

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not flying out there now. Oh yeah, so is Al your best man? Should I bug him?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:35 (twenty-two years ago)

No he's not. Alex T and John M are jointly.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Congradulations Tom -- who is DJing the reception?

― Mark (MarkR), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Lamacq

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

There's an exclusive Carter vs Sigur Ros "mash-up" being readied as we speak.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Shit, it took long enough for this thread to start!

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

And if the past is anything to judge by, it'll extend for a couple days as the actual singles reviews start coming up. (I'm really looking forward to seeing how it goes: I'm pretty sure Scott Plagenhoef will be contributing a lot of stuff, and I think he and I have pretty similar tastes in the pop and dance-pop arenas.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I tried to argue Rock Your Body over Cry Me a River, but he wouldn't have it (his point being that RYB was just JT doing MJ, which it is - but it's good MJ).

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm hoping to get a proper roasting from all arenas re: my contributions - alas, Ryan already killed my best shot @ getting skewered, but there is still hope.

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Whereas CMAR is just JT doing indie ;)

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a total Gang of Four rip-off, duh.

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

So Dominique, he took suggestions for that list from the staff?

("Cry Me a River" was picked for the same reason Alex Ross used it in that New Yorker article = "Look at everything's that going on!")

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

"You don't have to say what you did / I already know / I heard it from - HIM!" - imagine that spat out in Gedge guttural and my point is surely proved!

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

No, jaymc, this was after I saw it this morning. Of course, I immediately IM'd to make my case -- 6:30 am is not too late to change!

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 4 August 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I think this whole artical was a cynical and studied exercise in bandwagon jumping after the bandwagon left town.

― Larcole (Nicole), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Artical = article, jeez...

― Larcole (Nicole), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

It's very "ooh, look at me, I like POP!", isn't it? Do they expect a gold star for that? The indie/pop distinction is laid on a bit too thick, too.

That said, it's a good compilation apart from the strange and highly crap Jay-Z/Cam'ron/R Kelly bit in the middle. Without Me is so not Eminem's best, though.

― The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

All these songs are great!

― Sonny A. (Keiko), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

But I thought "Cross the Border" was about oral sex ??

― Sonny A. (Keiko), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

it is a masterful multiple metaphor

or ryan has just never gotten a blowjob

or bought drugs

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I think this whole artical was a cynical and studied exercise in bandwagon jumping after the bandwagon left town.

Yeah, he's like the "item!" guy/yesterday's news entertainment reporter on the Onion.

Also, the new pitchfork site is unreadable.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

actually it IS a masterful multiple metaphor, but still

i would have thought "give me head while i drive, bitch, i likes ta swerve" would be a pretty good diagram, really

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

strongo you sound a bit like a vice contributor a few posts back there

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

you skeptics - Ryan is offering an olive branch to ILM and you're shooting him down!

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 4 August 2003 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I wouldn't be so cynical about it. The idea that pop can be as good as indie IS quite novel for a lot of Pitchfork's readership -- including me, who was pretty indie-centric for many years (until just a few months ago, the only radio I listened to was college stations and NPR). If ILM hadn't opened my ears already, this article might've.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

actually, i don't mean that strongo

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Besides the tone of the thing, my main lament about this feature (which, no, wasn't a staff thing -- I didn't see this until today, either) is that a cdr-80 that reflected the range of music that will covered in the section may have been a more helpful introduction. (I suppose writing about pop is something ryan felt needed 'explaining' or 'defending' to his core audience.)

fwiw, ideally the section will cover pop, chart hip-hop (hell, and that other kind, too ;) ), and R&B, as well as indie, dancehall, dancefloor-oriented genres, ‘home listening’ electronic music, new leaked tracks from established artists, discopunk, mashups, great songs on weak or average albums, highlights from compilations (and maybe reissues?), interesting b-sides and remixes – anything that is best explored by pfm as an individual song rather than in the context of an album (and was therefore ignored by the site in the past). (Hopefuly, the entire staff will be contributing.)

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

^ at least this is my understanding of what the section will be like -- I can't rightly speak for the editorial staff or the site as a whole.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

'Cry Me A River' being more nuanced than Endtroducing tracks is surely a no-brainer. Now, being more nuanced than Fantasma and Point tracks OTOH...

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

The entire staff will be contributing, and it won't just be Top 40 - though unlike the now-defunct Repeat column, it'll focus on new music.

The mockups I've seen of the real section look exciting - it'll be more diverse and more interesting than the essay + list format of this first piece.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

jaymc, I think it's kinda lame that such an idea has to be novel in the first place. I also say that because a friend clogged up my e-mail a few months ago whining about my dismissal of his Jazzanova etc. sensibilities in favour of pop (his pet peeves-Lemon Jelly, Shibuya-kei, Timba/Neptunes, chartpop. Dork).

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

new pitchfork format!
more banners = more better???

― ddb, Monday, 4 August 2003 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

more banners, even worse music! WIN! WIN!

― jack cole (jackcole), Monday, 4 August 2003 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Barima, I agree it's lame. But unfortunately, that's how a lot of people use music, especially in indie circles: "I like this, therefore I CAN'T like that." When I started listening to indie rock in high school, I definitely liked the "reject the mainstream" aspect of it. Years later, I no longer felt the need to assert my identity in quite the same way, but my kneejerk dismissal of most pop radio still lingered.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 4 August 2003 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Funnyword descriptions of pop songs with funny noises---- buried under an avalanche of INDIE ROCK FENNESZ MANITOBA ENON OBSCURE POSTPUNK. How is it different from ILM? Because they admit that they feel way more comfortable with Mogwai than they do with Mystikal?

― d k (d k), Monday, 4 August 2003 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think there was anything "obvious" about including Outkast. Outkast suck. They should have skipped that and put in Beyonce's solo single—I love the horns on the chorus more than anything else on MTV right now.

― Phil Freeman (Phil Freeman), Monday, 4 August 2003 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

haha

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Um, he did include "Crazy in Love" -- it's #16.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 4 August 2003 18:48 (twenty-two years ago)

i can't wait until it's finally revealed that dk is really chris ott

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

and that chris ott is a little man embedded in jim derogatis' stomach, total recall stylee

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:15 (twenty-two years ago)

but yeah, this whole thing is surreally tardy, especially given that "radio"/"chart" (god sometimes i want to kill ilm, including myself, for allowing this phrase to take root) everything is at its lowest ebb since the mid-90s. it's a bit like someone who had spent most of the early 80s listening to sst suddenly proclaiming the genius of synth and new pop. the whole reason things are so "weird" and diverse right now (sean paul, panjabi mc, etc etc.) is because NO ONE knows what's going to happen next and they're all scrambling for possibilities. which is both good and bad.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:16 (twenty-two years ago)

god, i sound like simon reynolds

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Jaymc-maybe it has something to do with participating in Tiffany vs Debbie Gibson arguments as 80s kids?
(I'm with Debbie for the singles).

Strongo is now entering his split-personality run-Simon Reynolds Hulkington smash!

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

smash!=SMASH!!!

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

seriously though: bhangra/dancehall = "african music"

what will be 2004's graceland??

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

but yeah, this whole thing is surreally tardy

My question is, if Ryan has been listening to this stuff for a few years now, what's prompted him to bring it to Pitchfork now?

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:26 (twenty-two years ago)

is 2004's graceland gonna be that magoo hindi rap?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:33 (twenty-two years ago)

what if 2004's graceland = the next kelis album?

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

ooh telling xpost. except i hope that mine comes true.

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

mine is coming true!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I read it in the times!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

they admit that they feel way more comfortable with Mogwai than they do with Mystikal

"admit." feh. i like Mystikal. i own a Mogwai record which i haven't listened to more than once in the last two years. i imagine many of the pro-pop people here would tell you something similar. i imagine some of them like both bands. in a perfect world, accusations of disingenuousness would have gone out of style, oh, about two weeks after ILM got started.

just because this board has been invaded by indie-rock true-believers in the last year or so does not mean the the pro-pop position of the rest of us is feigned. it just means we are no longer the dominant voice.

i think it's fantastic that Ryan has done this, and for exactly the reasons jaymc points out. most of my indie-centric friends, whom i constantly i have to defend my own taste against, usually starting with the same "it's all about the producer, maan" ground zero that Tom points out, read Pitchfork. if they (and people like them) are exposed to one more voice shouting (or whispering, or whatever) "there's more to music than the fukking shins!" then I'm happy.

and jess: it seems to me that the basic point that Ryan is conceding here, ie that pop music can be good and can "matter," etc. is more or less independent of the question of whether this year's pop music is better or worse than last year's...

― flightsatdusk (flightsatdusk), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

also, to belabor the obvious, but the times when nothing is happening in pop music are precisely the times when everything is happening in pop music

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Why are he/you all calling it 'pop' music? Everything on that list is hip-hop or R&B.

― weird semantics, Monday, 4 August 2003 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

read a billboard

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:42 (twenty-two years ago)

bite me

― weird semantics, Monday, 4 August 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.garfnet.org.uk/new_mill/bbmedia/issue001/jpegs/simon.jpg

― EC, Monday, 4 August 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

i would go a step further and say everything on the list is R&B and *not* hip-hop (indie kids listen to hip-hop, after all). what makes it pop is that, imo, r&b is the dominant sound of pop today. to my untutored ears two-three years ago, there was zero difference between Britney and TLC. now that my pop-ear has become more refined, i hear a difference, but i think they are more operating within the same musical paradigm than say, Britney and the Strokes.

― flightsatdusk (flightsatdusk), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:47 (twenty-two years ago)

if he really was embracing 'pop,' there would be some chart hits other than hip-hop and r&b in there... ok, kiley, but that's it...

last time i checked, jay-z, outkast and nas were hip-hop...

― weird semantics, Monday, 4 August 2003 19:50 (twenty-two years ago)

dear weird semantics:

mr. blount is correct. Pop is a metagenre determined not by style by chart position and intent to be on said chart. anything can be pop as long as enough people buy it.

love,
your little laughing baboon

― Bosse-De-Nage (Bosse-De-Nage), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Could be Ryan decided to speak on his 'pop-love' now in the absence of not having a New Big Thing to big up instead. Or he's fed up of Pitchfork's own 'dominant voice' in the face of his 'pop-love'. But I like what Blount said about everything happening in the quiet times-when one big thing's happening, everything else suddenly becomes secondary and you won't know what you're missing.

Things I've learnt on this thread no. 1: indie-centric fans=Mo'Wax/Fabric fans.
Otherwise known as students.

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

http://freespace.virgin.net/r.kent/images/simontub.jpg

― EC, Monday, 4 August 2003 19:56 (twenty-two years ago)

pop radio

r&b + hip-hop radio

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I honestly don't think anyone who listens to indie rock should worry about modern pop music or anything that sounds at all like modern pop music. It should be, You've chosen The Shins, you've made your decision and you can't have it both ways.

― d k (d k), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:06 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.simpsonspark.com/images/bandeaux/lenny_carl.gif

― EC, Monday, 4 August 2003 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

yes yes, of course hip-hop and r&b are on the charts and are therefore pop inasmuch as the word means anything in genre terms (ie, not much). Any baboon can see that.

but they are hardly the only kind of music that is on the charts and thus qualifies as 'pop.' everything from country to Kelly Clarkson to Matchbox 20 is also on the charts. yet no sign of any of that other non-r&b/hip-hop chart stuff on Mr. Pitchfork's list.

it's not that hard to grasp, really.

― weird semantics, Monday, 4 August 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Why is this thread so snippy? All this haranguing over what is actually pop and what the songs are "really" about and "I was here first go away" sounds pretty fucking indie-dork to me.

― Kris (aqueduct), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:19 (twenty-two years ago)

semantics is right in that when pop is embraced by corny indie fuxx it's strictly the r&b and hip-hop stuff

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

dk needs to try harder, hire better writers - he was better with the malkmus flexi-disc material.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

no, no, i like pop and hip-hop and r&b and his list! i just think it's odd the way it is framed

the thread is snippy because all pitchfork threads are snippy

bye

― weird semantics, Monday, 4 August 2003 20:26 (twenty-two years ago)

The new layout is ass. It must be said repeatedly.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

semantics is right in that when pop is embraced by corny indie fuxx it's strictly the r&b and hip-hop stuff

mm exactly. Can't quite imagine Girls Aloud or Liberty X or even tATu on that compilation, though all are deserving of a place. Certainly above R Kelly, anyway.

― The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

d k, ain't never too late to show people what they're missing.

Kris, I think Ryan's definition of pop in the confines of his list needs to be read into-it looks like 'The Best of BET 2000-Present'. And I haven't seen BET since 1997 (I was on holiday).

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

The best thing about the list was that it was all about R&B and the mainstream rap music.

It would have been a hell of a lot more amusing if they said something about System of a Down or Good Charlotte or anything like that.

or do they want to never let anyone know that they did reviews about tons of punk-pop groups?

I mean hey! They gave Bouncing Souls a 9.1!

― (Andrzej B.), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Blount and TheLex OTM, except for R Kelly vs tATu.

Pitchfork would be a comedy bistro if it did more pop-punk reviews.

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.theninhotline.net/meatpers/meatsplash.jpg

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, sorry about the "barbarians at the gate" tone of my post. didn't mean to put it quite that way. what i meant was "there are now threads about enon" != "ilmers are really just indie rockers who are lying about their pop love" and, rather, = "there are now [more] people on ilm who like enon."

― flightsatdusk (flightsatdusk), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Hang on. Nineteen artists, FOUR of whom are white (and three of those four are produced by black hip-hop producers). I'm sensing:

a) condescension towards traditionally black music (though I have elsewhere been arguing that this description is artistically redundant and ridiculous for the past hour, but whateva) by classing it as 'pop' and something which was previously considered Not Worthy Of Attention

b) the late realisation that R&B/hip-hop is as 'serious' and 'indie-credible' as rock, but also popular and with a chart presence

c) taking advantage of the fact that most sane people realised some time ago that R&B/hip-hop was as 'credible' an art as rock and schmindie to do a Pop List which will still have credibility in its audience's eyes

d) last but not least actually ignoring POP. I mean bubblegum teen pop. I mean Britney and Christina and Daphne & Celeste and trashy pop which is just NOT credible, which is just product to be shifted for profit, but which is nevertheless good.

― The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:38 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.jerkcity.com/memepool/caveman.gif

― EC, Monday, 4 August 2003 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

lex - you realize that pitchfork is an american site and that acts like girls aloud, daphne, celeste, etc. don't exist in any fashion over here, right?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, but I'd expect even them to know about Britney and Christina and tATu...

― The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

FWIW, I submitted a Girls Aloud blurb to pfm, so I assume it will run at some point.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, but I'd expect even them to know about Britney and Christina and tATu...

them = him in this case, it is just one list by one guy. I expect future entries to contain a wide range of music, which is to be expected.

know about? I'm sure. Are you really criticising this list for not representing every facet of pop?

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, but I'd expect even them to know about Britney and Christina and tATu...

also, will likely do tATu and Christina, too. (I still feel weird about being part of this pfm "them," but gotta stop doing that...)

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

scott pl I love you but what the fuck are you doing?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 4 August 2003 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you guys think the way..I think it was Rob Mitchum or something, I forget the name...but the guy who reviewed Junior Senior, and gave it a good one...do you think he expounded on Indie Guilt Syndrome also because of ILM ???????????

Surely "Indie Guilt" as a term is an ILM creation, yes ? Did it exist before us? All this -> proof that ILM is close to conquering world ?

― Vic (Vic), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm criticising it for focusing on the facet of pop which can be justified in the same old same old indie terms of reference: the idea of the auteur (in these cases the stellar R&B hip-hop), the emphasis on production etc. Furthermore, the widespread credibility which pretty much everyone ascribes to the songs on that list enable him to ignore the essentially trashy, ephemeral, manufactured nature of the pop which indie fucks have traditionally had a problem with. Each of the artists on that list can be slotted into a traditional indie category of respect: the wizard producers, the emotional diva, the soulful crooner. What isn't present is a willingness to judge pop music for what it is: manufactured, insincere, unartistic, shallow, but still GREAT.

― The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/img/caveman.jpg

― EC, Monday, 4 August 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

when did ilm become completely incomprehsible? did i miss an upgrade or something?

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

The Lex is somewhat off the money i fear. somewhere close to right maybe about the 'indie' need to hold on to auteurism (but hey..baby steps ynknow), though i'm not sure about this "i have looked into a sugababe dimple and seen the unending soulless abyss that is pop and I LOVE IT" business.

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Dear ILM,

Please explain pop music to me.

Love,
Kris.

― Kris (aqueduct), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Dear Kris,

Turn on the radio.

Love,
Strongo

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Tell me of your radio, Strongo.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

it's actually a toucan in a box who hums things and occasional sighs and mutters "eh, it's a living."

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.woota.com/toucan1a.jpg

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 4 August 2003 21:57 (twenty-two years ago)

i am thinking pop is a shorthand for popular. and fan is shorthand for fanatic. pop fan = popular fanatic.

― gaz (gaz), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

thankfully, i am neither.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:06 (twenty-two years ago)

FANATICS!!!!

― D Boon (Andy K), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Dear Strongo,

I haven't listened to the radio since 2002. You know, back when pop was good.

I listen to great albums by rock bands such as Budgie and Rose Tattoo.

Love,
Kris.

― Kris (aqueduct), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Lex, do you like the songs on the list? I do, for the most part, though sometimes Ryan likes them for a different reason than me.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:09 (twenty-two years ago)

The Lex is somewhat off the money i fear. somewhere close to right maybe about the 'indie' need to hold on to auteurism (but hey..baby steps ynknow), though i'm not sure about this "i have looked into a sugababe dimple and seen the unending soulless abyss that is pop and I LOVE IT" business.

I'm not suggesting that we should embrace the commercial, soulless vapid bullshit of the pop industry in its entirety, just that if you're going to love POP, you've got to acknowledge its presence (and, in the cases of great pop, ignore it). I mean... Girls Aloud. Great pop band, for who they are as well as the songs they're given. But... they don't mean it. They're not artists. They were picked out of a talent show line up on tacky British Saturday night TV. Their producers aren't auteurs like the Neptunes. They love what they do in the sense that they like dressing up in pretty clothes and prancing around, and it beats the alternative (dead end job, life on a council estate). They're movable cultural signifiers and unaware of it.

Er, what all of that was saying is this: you can declare your love for Aaliyah and retain indie credibility. To declare your love for Girls Aloud, you have to abandon any attempt at that because that's simply not how their music works.

Re: soulless. The music industry is soulless, the pop puppets may be soulless, but the person on the receiving end doesn't have to be soulless. Maybe shallow though.

dleone... as I mentioned earlier, I like (love) everything on the list except for the crappy bit in the middle with Jay-Z, Cam'ron (wtf?!) and R Kelly.

― The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:11 (twenty-two years ago)

round and round
round and round
round and round
round and round
we go we go we go

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:12 (twenty-two years ago)

someone plz answer my indie guilt etymology question damnit!!

― Vic (Vic), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Their producers aren't auteurs like the Neptunes.

In what way IS there a difference between Pharrell & Co, Max Martin/Denniz Pop/Cheiron anno 1996 and Stock, Aitken & Waterman anno 1987? All three specialise(d) in producing highly successful, very formulaic pop songs with manufactured/disposable vocalists, with a distinct own sound.

― Siegbran (eofor), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:27 (twenty-two years ago)

This thread is awful.

― J (Jay), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:28 (twenty-two years ago)

In summary: Ryan Schreiber in 'music with credibility' shockah.

We should be so suprised. I mean, that list could've been written here.

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

In what way is there a difference between Booker T & the MGs and Kasenetz & Katz?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

"real instruments" in the case of the former, and kitsch via distance for the latter.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

TheLex, I don't attach any credibility to listening to Girls Aloud, even though they have one mini-classic of a single. I reject the opinion that listening to GA automatically means I have little-none, after all isn't that just guilt by association?I'm with you on the pop industry bullshit part.

And Siegbran, yowch again. 'Pharrell and Co.'?

― Barima (Barima), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Vic: if you look at the last epic Pitchfork thread on here, you'll find Mitchum explaining himself better than I could (since I don't really know him, or anything) -- basically, I think he got into pop and dance-pop via through talking about it with different people, including looking in on ILM, as well as through the recent indie-rock leanover into dance. If I remember right, his position on that last thread was something like: "You guys are right, I'm definitely paying more attention to this stuff. Not that that'll keep you guys from being mean to me about it either way."

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, listening to GA = no indie credibility, but who cares about indie credibility? (Apart from Ryan Schreiber.)

(Incidentally, the entire GA album is classic. Seriously.)

― The Lex (The Lex), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm starting to love Pitchfork for its underdog status on ILM

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 4 August 2003 22:50 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - two hours in a dorm room will cure you of that

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:52 (twenty-two years ago)

(I know absolutely nothing about pop OR indie so popularity contests = the only conceivable method of taking sides)

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Monday, 4 August 2003 22:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I have no idea why this article merited a thread one way or the other, besides tired pfork bashing for the sake of it or suspect patting ourselves on the back (ie. I really doubt ilx had much to do with ryan's pop 'awakening').

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Monday, 4 August 2003 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

ryan's smart enuf not to listen to ilx's tired old shtick (no offense meant to ilx)(and yeah, this idea that ilx exists as pushers of "out with the old canon here comes the new canon" is wishful thinking)

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Monday, 4 August 2003 23:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Kudos for including "Cross The Border" but I disagree with their interpretation. It's a feel-good pop song, not a harrowing anti-drugs message.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 4 August 2003 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

ILM reaffirmed why I listen to pop in some ways, but I always doubted it'd have the same affect on everyone else. Still, there doesn't seem to be much moment of zen-ness to Ryan's piece. There's something more calculated about it, a reaction to finally fully acknowledging hip hop/r'n'b's chart dominance (and on some level perpetuating hip hop/r'n'b=chartpop, something I disagree with in that I think they straddle genres rather than giving into chartpop completely).

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 00:11 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.ciai-s.net/ToraBora-map.gif

― EC, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 00:26 (twenty-two years ago)

EC, that pic reminds me of X-Men/X-Force headquarter diagrams in the early 90s.

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 00:37 (twenty-two years ago)

(nabisco, thanks. i'll assume you mean the pfork thread started by ceddy, and not one more recent, since it seems like there's one every week or so)

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 01:19 (twenty-two years ago)

The Cam'ron song is wonderful.

― My name is Kenny (My name is Kenny), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 01:56 (twenty-two years ago)

"In what way IS there a difference between Pharrell & Co, Max Martin/Denniz Pop/Cheiron anno 1996 and Stock, Aitken & Waterman anno 1987? All three specialise(d) in producing highly successful, very formulaic pop songs with manufactured/disposable vocalists, with a distinct own sound."

If Max Martin had released an indie-credible solo album to prove that he wasn't just a faceless German he might have gotten some respect from Pitchfork too. Sometimes I wonder if the entire purpose of N.E.R.D. is to make The Neptunes' entire body of work more palatable to people who don't like chart-rap and r&b.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Possibly,

But this probably has more to do with the record label than the Neps, particularly considering the forced re-recording of In Search Of... to supposedly appeal to a nu-metal/indie crowd.

― Michael Dieter, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 02:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Besides the obvious (and perhaps diminishing) 'credibility' working with Chad and Pharrell bestows on a recording act, Ryan?

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 02:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Once upon a time...

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 03:02 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - I almost mentioned trife's history with pfork & cam'ron

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 03:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Wait... don't the Shins write pop songs? Don't a lot of indie bands? Aren't many of them just indie because they haven't been picked up by a major?

I think the 'Fork is just saying: some people make good albums. Some people make good singles. It's high time we wrote about the singles. I mean, they've reviewed Eminem and 50 Cent and stuff. They just haven't reviewed Christina Aguilera because it's just highly unlikely that she could make an album that's 100 percent good. Even the die-hard pop fans could admit that.

― Phantroll, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 03:56 (twenty-two years ago)

but they review plenty of albums that (according to them) aren't even 10 percent good.

― flightsatdusk (flightsatdusk), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 04:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I have no idea why this article merited a thread one way or the other, besides tired pfork bashing for the sake of it or suspect patting ourselves on the back (ie. I really doubt ilx had much to do with ryan's pop 'awakening').

Mostly because I was bored at work and wanted to talk about it. But not to be all smug and pally about it. I've read Pitchfork for much, much longer than I've read ILX (since I Googled "Gastr del Sol" way back in '98), and I just find the sudden pop-love very interesting in light of the image the site has cultivated over the years. It's also personally interesting, because, as I said upthread, I've only recently gotten into pop myself after listening to nothing but indie for a long time. (And in this case, ILX did have much to do with my "awakening.") You'll note that I said this is ultimately a good thing for Pitchfork. Obviously, my thread title suggests a certain attitude, but any subsequent "tired bashing" ain't my fault.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 05:23 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, no harm no foul your way no doubt. just I can't imagine any pitchfork thread turning into anything other than every other pfork thread. I did really like and do really wish they'd update whatever that vaguely nylpmish section is called, the one with the dleone mac bigup and the rob mitchum joe jackson shoutout (inspiring two downloads - ie. the only reason I read 95% of any music 'journalism').

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 06:32 (twenty-two years ago)

well it turns into any other pfork thread bcz all that needs to be said abt has already been said. but with ppl like d k around we need the entertainment.

I think some ILM ppl need to make peace with indie and some pfork writers need to make peace with pop.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 07:05 (twenty-two years ago)

http://pitchforkmedia.com/mail/

I think in the face of the PFM readership expecting Ryan to big up Girls Aloud is a bit hopeful.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Those letters are fucking disgusting.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:19 (twenty-two years ago)

well it just shows that if pfork did a 'switch' or was more pop concious then another web mag would take away the readers.

I don't quite understand why this move is jumping on the bandwagon as they are pretty successful(as i understand it) with what they do already.

so I haven't read it but its a good move to branch out into anything else.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm in agreement Julio - I don't think it's jumping any bandwagons, and the letters persuade me that it's more rewarding to try and challenge readers' perceptions than preach to the converted. That said it is quite funny to read an article in mid-2003 saying in essence "OK brace yourselves readers there's this single called Get Ur Freak On and it's ACTUALLY GOOD!" but again the letters suggest that this tone was neccessary.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't take the piss a bit though ;)

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:30 (twenty-two years ago)

"Pop's alright kids, as long as it's like indie."

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:33 (twenty-two years ago)

pop is NEVER alrite

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 11:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I had no idea that pfork readers were that stupid and hypocritical 'til I read the letters. In that case I semi-retract my earlier statements upthread.

― Larcole (Nicole), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)

PFork readers are an audience too!

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.philipt.com/beekspeek/images/scribbler.gif

― EC, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 12:55 (twenty-two years ago)

The only way I will agree to such a "oh geez mah, my thumb was up my butt" mindset is through a fair trade off. Here are my terms:

-If that list is serious, either pull the list and apologize, or,
-rework the Best 100 albums of the 90s list, removing every Pavement album while simultaneously admitting that post O.K. Computer Radiohead is good, but not great.
-And, in good faith, you, the editor in chief of this virtual toilet read, accept that your beloved Trail of Dead is just a Texan reworking of the 92-95 post straight edge hardcore sound echoing from NYC, and swap the '02 Trail of Dead 10.0 for the '02 Interpol score (if no one was looking, this would have happened last year, now I'm just giving you a shout out from the audience, so it won't look so bad).

Ha ha

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 13:01 (twenty-two years ago)

It's music for people who don't truly like music. "My man go n' dun somethin' bad...now I gon' get back et him!"....by driving in an expensive car, trying to have lots of sex (because then I'll truly achieve happiness) and dancing a lot.

Oh, man. Oh, my. I'm framing this letter so I can look total fucking cluelessness squarely in the face whenever I'm feeling especially mopey about the world.

― Paul Ess, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 13:50 (twenty-two years ago)

That letter makes me really, really sad.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Why does everyone automatically assume that focusing on and praising pop production is somehow an indie-centric approach to pop? This even seems somewhat counter-intuitive - hasn't indie rock at least in large part been classically defined in opposition to big-budget studio productions? I mean, on the hard rock singles thread, the indie rock fans were attacking me for celebrating glossy produced pop-metal and pop-punk instead of feeling the rocky rawness of Hatebreed or the White Stripes.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Because indie fans may think it's the only thing of value in good pop to begin with?

Yet more evidence indie fans=Jockey Slut's demographic.

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Can't pop fans feel the same thing, and still be pop fans?

― Kris (aqueduct), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Because the problem indie fans have with pop is that lacks authenticity: the singers don't play instruments or write their own songs or create their own beats. So who does? The producers. It's not valuing the glossy, it's valuing the musicianship.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:18 (twenty-two years ago)

What is up with all this pro-pop terrorism! 'Assimilate, assimilate! You are with us or you are against us'! (IMO "Pop rules" = "I've grown up now, jeez why can't you do the same [*sigh*, eyeroll]")[jaymc - the problem indie fans have is that pop is all you ever fuckin' hear everywhere! the same damn song 100 times a day no matter what the location!]

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Heh, but I managed to avoid it pretty well for a long time. I didn't here "Hot in Herre" until, like, last month.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Phil Spector and his devoted minions to thread.

I had to stop reading when I got to the end of the first letter: "PS-....maybe I've got it all wrong...let me know." Yeah, because you need Pitchfork (or someone) to DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU.

― M Matos (M Matos), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Liking pop because you like it versus liking pop because it's ubiquitous and we're all Pavlov's Dog?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

i haven't heard top 40 radio in six months.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually I was thinking less of conditioned reflexes than of Stockholm Syndrome

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

dave q in creem magazine style argument shocker

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

it is quite funny to read an article in mid-2003 saying in essence "OK brace yourselves readers there's this single called Get Ur Freak On and it's ACTUALLY GOOD!"

To give credit where it's due, the 'Fork actually ran a very positive review of Miss E: So Addictive (which includes this track) back in 2001 around the time it came out.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Canada's just a bloated version of Michigan anyway tho Jess!

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

HEY WTF HOW COME ROLLING STONE HASN'T WRITTEN ABOUT THE NEW MERZBOW???

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

hey, I'm just bitter because every time I go for a cup of coffee in this town I gotta hear the fucking white stripes or notwist or yeah yeah yeahs!!

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

it would seriously be a lovely alternative for a week to hear ashanti everywhere i go.

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

You've heard YYYs etc, I've heard them, they aren't mutual friends of ours so they must have distribution, therefore they are pop!

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

i mean, honestly: what kind of tool goes from ON THE CORNER to the white stripes at 10 am when i'm trying to eat a nice everything bagel with my lady and the only other people in the coffee shop are the eldery, the hungover, and junkies? (or some combination thereof.)

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

[IMG SRC="http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~sidler/icons/cs-cry.jpg" WIDTH="419" HEIGHT="424"]
<[MG SRC="http://ask-nanny.com/images/p_cry.jpg" WIDTH="183" HEIGHT="188"]
[IMG SRC="http://kirtland.cc.mi.us/~schenke/nick&jo.jpg" WIDTH="1280" HEIGHT="960"]
[IMG SRC="http://web.starlinx.com/grantt/bab3.gif" WIDTH="410" HEIGHT="252"]

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 14:58 (twenty-two years ago)

i think we have the answer to "what kind of tool"!

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't worry about the old folks. 'On the Corner' came out in 1972 or something, by now nobody can tell the difference between that and Herb Alpert. Circa "Rise" of course. Plus old people and junkies don't buy anything, they just get free coffee refills for hours, so there may be some ulterior motives going on there

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

[img]http://members.tripod.com/~jackbowman/SuperCode/bee.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.ccpollen.com/BeeDance.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.woodinville.com/location/scrapbook/bassetbee.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.collectorsconnection.org/images10/23a387.jpg[/img]

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

http://images.cardomain.com/member_img_a/319000-319999/319485_2_full.jpg

http://images.cardomain.com/member_img_a/319000-319999/319485_1_full.jpg

― d k (d k), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

i was so tired i momentarily confused it with sextant

thankfully no one heard me or i'd have my thumbs broken by guys wearing ill fitting cords

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)

gah

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry, my finger slipped

― strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:10 (twenty-two years ago)

good ol' Phoebe's. coffee with a crooked cap.

― abeta (abeta), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I, like Jaymc, managed to go a few years without ever hearing any pop. I didn't own a radio, and when I was around one I'd usually listen to the college station; records tended to go straight from indie stores to my stereo. I didn't have a problem with pop through that period, though I obviously I liked what I was listening to "better" enough that I didn't feel a need to check back in with the top 40.

This creates a weird issue. I'm in my mid-twenties; I rarely get annoyed by the overplay of a pop song, cause I'm pretty much in a position to choose whatever I listen to. (It's hard enough to make time to listen to the stuff I want to, though I'll admit that when "P.I.M.P." comes on two radio stations at once, my jaw locks.) I imagine some of Pitchfork's readers are still teenagers, though, or still coming off massive inescapable exposure to all things popular, which (only partly) explains their self-definition as anti-pop. I'm not sure what can be done about that. It was my period of pop-music deprivation that made it sound good to me when I started listening again -- suddenly indie was the predictable everywhere-around-me music, and pop felt like the fresh and novel new experience.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

'I'm not sure what can be done about that'

You mean 'What is to be done?'!!!

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

suddenly indie was the predictable everywhere-around-me music, and pop felt like the fresh and novel new experience.

Oh my God, yes.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

What if that's just the primal fear of class slippage kicking in

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Hey nabisco, do you still like Happy Family?

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Explain what you mean, Dave Q.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:40 (twenty-two years ago)

(I don't think I've heard any since writing the review I'm guessing you just saw, Dom. I should note that I cranked out too many reviews back then, and only stand by a slim percentage of them -- judging by those reviews, though, I was really really digging that stuff. Weird.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, actually I read those reviews years ago, when their second record came out. I went back this weekend, and saw it was by you, and almost flipped.

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Because the problem indie fans have with pop is that lacks authenticity: the singers don't play instruments or write their own songs or create their own beats. So who does? The producers. It's not valuing the glossy, it's valuing the musicianship.

Don't you still think that this is a step though? Being able to see artistry and auteurship in the production of a track by a boy band star despite that he doesn't play instruments in real time or write his own songs is totally different from the way someone would appreciate Pavement or the White Stripes.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Like all the people who are into pop seem to be doing OK in life and all the people who are into indie are just going to clubs and living in rented places etc and when you hear a pop song rather than resent having it imposed on you you think "Well if I can find something to identify with in this or just project the impression then I haven't entirely lost my chance toward upward social mobility, luckily I don't have the 'loser gene' as it were" etc

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Heh, Dave Q -- I was partially pondering that issue in a thread on ILE...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not valuing the glossy, it's valuing the musicianship.

So the right way to value pop is to value the glossiness? In that case shouldn't the image consultants, stylists, and marketing department get more of the credit than the performers themselves?

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Can you link that Ned?

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

(Further to Sundar - also, producers usually ARE musicians except hyper-talented by muso standards as they probably learned every instrument then got into layering and arranging same etc which must mean they're even better musos than the musos! Then again, 'talent' doesn't guarantee shit)

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Like, what do you ppl think producers actually DO? Like it's possible to 'prefabricate' stuff without having any musical talent? Max Martin probably was taking classical viola lessons at age 4! (Remember Pete Waterman singing on 'Pop Idol'?)

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, it's an indirect connection at best, Mark, but here I was pondering a variety of issues, one of which was the idea of listening to pop as a reflection of an improvement in one's life. The whole thread is very interesting to me because I was asking for (and received) a wide range of responses on that and the other issues I brought up, but more contributions always welcomed...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Dude, I almost flip when I look up something I "haven't heard" on there and find my own name staring back at me. Thankfully, Ned's been replacing my shoddier ones.

Sundar's absolutely right, of course. Then again, so is anyone who suspects the auteur-focus is a way from people to distance themselves from the actual content of pop, to step back and look at it as craftsmanship and not have to respond to the lyrics or images or emotions, which are the bits of pop hardcore indiefans tend to have much bigger issues with. I.e., it's a way to like pop while keeping the same indie values. Which, like Sundar says, is a step, and could serve someone fine.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Why does 'who gets the credit' matter? I see this argument all the time - "oh the producer should get the credit then" - well sure yes fine but these are consumer singles reviews and unfortunately 'BRANDY' is the brand name on the artefact (or MP3 whatever).

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, some producers are great musicians, but not all. It seems to me that most are competent on an instrument or two (usually keyboards or drums), but some don't play anything and just go by their ear.

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Thankfully, Ned's been replacing my shoddier ones.

*bows* One tries, but they haven't always given me permission to do so!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm baffled by Dave's class thing: where I live, it's the other way around. The bulk of people listening to indie bands around here are twenty-something college grads with office jobs and nice shoes; the people listening to pop, hip-hop, and r&b are city kids on the south side of Chicago. (The best "urban"-format station broadcasts from out toward Gary, Indiana, a Detroit-like stretch of collapses.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Why does 'who gets the credit' matter?

Well, I think it matters to me as a fan. If there's an artist whose work I appreciate, then I like to follow their output, to see how it develops and so on. So if I don't know who's responsible for creating something I enjoy, then I can't appreciate it in context of a larger body of work. Of course, I don't need to have that perspective, but sometimes it adds to my enjoyment.

(btw, please ignore my previous post, I was misunderstanding the post I was responding to)

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

For example, once I realize that Timbaland is a producer whose work I enjoy, then I can follow his output and see it in context. If I was ignorant of producers and only thought about the stars whose name is on the cover, then I would never connect the dots between these random songs that I enjoy.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Along with o. nate above, it also matters to me as a musician, but maybe that's neither here nor there (or rather, no less of a "tastes great, less filling" dilemma as the bulk of this thread).

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Pop producers use the "talent" as their instruments. So does every other producer worth calling a producer.

― Kris (aqueduct), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

dleone - How many people can produce actual recorded obviously-popular-with-someone-stuff just 'going by their ear' though? Most ppl can't even sing along with their car stereos! (Producers might not be 'great musicians' but they're obviously 'good enough' is what I'm saying, how fantastic do you want these people to be?)

Nabisco - how 'indie' is the 'indie' they're into? (I don't want to get into arbitrary lists here, I mean - once somebody has an office job, it is simply not possible for most people to go to clubs every night! I know there's lots of people on this board who will heartily prove otherwise, but for the general population I think hours-spent-per in clubs, record shopping etc declines in proportion to the urgency of advancing one's career etc)

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, and for chart-pop plenty of suburban teenagers, who I think still slant toward the less-economically-mobile: the teenagers in the rich suburbs tend to be all about the radio-rock and emo-pop and the aftermath of Chicago's mid-90s "alternative" heyday.

Put it this way. At my job, my boss was the one listening to Belle and Sebastian, Radiohead, and the New Pornographers. Down in the mailroom, they'd be listening to Missy Elliott and R Kelly while they sorted packages.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

dave q: it's quite easy (didn't you read the mixerman saga??), you just need a good engineer who can translate your thoughts into sound. In this case, the producer knows exactly what he wants, but maybe not necessarily how to tell the band to play, or how to wring the sounds from the equipment as well as his engineer.

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

(in a philosophical sense, this kind of producer is a "good musician", just not necessarily in the physical sense)

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

OK - if that's we talk about when we talk about indie then now I can fully understand why everyone hates it and likes 'pop' better. Seriously, I thought you meant totally subterranean shit, I was like "Why does everyone hate stuff that nobody's in danger of hearing anyway much less having their life ruined by it" etc (ie, when ppl say 'Indie' here they mean what used to be known as 'alternative', right? Yeah, go ahead and hate on that all you want! Just ignore everything I said previously!)

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus you need serious cash to get into indie and order all millions of 7"s and shit.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

True, Dave, I'm talking about popular indie, the Radiohead / White Stripes / Flaming Lips demographic. And yeah, the people listening to Lightning Bolt -- the people who were listening to the White Stripes back around De Stijl -- are definitely less economically go-getting. (They could be, though: so they're working on independent films or repairing amplifiers now, but most of them have college degrees.)

I mean, I'd agree with you that there's a level of high-life aspiration in a lot of pop that's not at all in indie, and possibly hitting the crushingly-poor nine-to-five mid-twenties can make someone relate to that aspiration more than before. (Becoming poor = starting to like pop? No, I don't think it's that.) But if it were just a matter of musical taste lining up with the soon-to-be-rich, I'd be listening to Badly Drawn Boy.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I think it matters to me as a fan. If there's an artist whose work I appreciate, then I like to follow their output, to see how it develops and so on. So if I don't know who's responsible for creating something I enjoy, then I can't appreciate it in context of a larger body of work. Of course, I don't need to have that perspective, but sometimes it adds to my enjoyment.

But most pop producers - certainly Timbaland and the Neptunes - use the pop puppet singer as either a) a muse (Aaliyah) or b) a conduit through which they can channel a certain image (Girls Aloud's council power thing, Britney's sex kitten thing). The relationship between producer and popstar is a two-way thing - yeah, the popstar wouldn't be anywhere without songs to sing, but the writers and producers need someone with the right image to sing their songs. Thus, "following the work" of a producer only works to an extent as they specifically tailor their work to fit whichever popstar they're writing for at that moment.

― The Lex (The Lex), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave: I mean, we're talking about "indie" in terms of the Pitchfork readership, aren't we? That's a pretty collegiate audience.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

So is the continuous panic about Pitchfork = "these ppl are the leaders of tomorrow, it is urgent we invest great vigilance in their cultural development"

― dave q, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

As Andy Partridge said, "We play the songs much too loud/ This is pop"

― H.D. Fantasia, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

http://members.aol.com/mbastyle/web/ltie1.gif

― EC, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

it's amusing that radiohead and the flaming lips are being referred to as "indie." last i checked they were on Capitol and Warner Bros.

― Felcher (Felcher), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Cue endless discussion on meaning of "indie"

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

just trying to make this thread last longer

― Felcher (Felcher), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

http://web.tiscali.it/cubex/foto/Avril113.jpg

― EC, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 17:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I find it even more surprising that both Oval and Brian Wilson are presumably "indie touchstones" now. One is an IDM producer; the other, well, a canonized pop star. I started scanning the article and found it pretty good so far. He mostly seems to use electronica references that are totally appropriate for discussing heavily electronically produced pop music. I find it odd that technical mastery, complexity, and elaborate production texture are perceived as "indie values" - if anything, these things seem to have more to do with the pop that indie traditionally defined itself against (more Phil Spector than Velvet Underground). If indie rock has somehow come around to embracing these values, I don't know that that makes them "indie values".

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)

(Or if DJ Shadow and Oval are indie touchstones as much as Sebadoh or Galaxie 500 can we even still talk about a coherent set of indie aesthetic values?)

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I just applied to Ryan to write for Pitchfork! Wish me luck!

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

If you get in a celebration of the new Limp Bizkit album when it comes out as a lead story in Pitchfork, I will laugh with great joy.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:43 (twenty-two years ago)

If indie rock has somehow come around to embracing these values, I don't know that that makes them "indie values".

I don't think these are "indie" values, but I think the "indie" audience (like today's mailbag writers, in their cute cro-mag way) treats as legitimate any music that took craftsmanship and honest intent, as opposed to artists that they perceive as having been jammed down our throats through fashion, marketing, and the mainstream media (like the American Idol winners or Mandy Moore, or Justin Timberlake, until it turned out that he had a real producer).

(Or if DJ Shadow and Oval are indie touchstones as much as Sebadoh or Galaxie 500 can we even still talk about a coherent set of indie aesthetic values?)

That's huge, but I want to point out that very few people only listen to indie rock, at least in the 'Fork's audience. And anyway, it's hard to describe Top 40 hits in terms of Pavement. "Remember how 'Cut Your Hair' just seemed to cry out for rapping? Well, this single is NOTHING BUT rapping!"

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Having not heard that album, and worried how the absence of Wes Borland will affect their music, I don't want people to assume I'll enjoy PANTY SNIFFER.

That said I will buy it the day it comes out.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I think we are ALL worried about how the absence of Wes Borland is going to affect their music, Anthony.

― scott seward, Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I stay up all noon thinking about it.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:56 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, but the lyrics should remain dope. Durst is Durst for better or worst.

BAM! I love it when a thread gets derailed by someone (who's usually not me) mentioning Limp Bizkit. Makes me feel like a big shot.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Some stereotypes you don't want to be saddled with. ;-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 20:18 (twenty-two years ago)

ok this thread is too long for me to get through right now but c'mon, the very idea of trying to broadly summarize the past 3 years of hits in an 80-minute mix is absurd. nice try, though

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Al has a point. I tried to sum up the 80s on 2 CD's and failed.
And that was 2 CD's of mp3s....

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 21:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Chris: If anything, I was defending Ryan and saying that his approach doesn't seem as indie-centric, at least in the narrow, traditional sense, as it's being made out to be.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Tuesday, 5 August 2003 23:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, Fred Durst is running the company!

― dave q, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Sundar is more OTM than everyone else combined and squared.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 00:23 (twenty-two years ago)

For certain!

― Kris (aqueduct), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 00:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Sundar, I'm sorry - didn't mean to seem argumentative. I found your points really interesting.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 00:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Sunday, I guess in particular, as someone who writes for Pitchfork, I find what you're talking about - the disappearance of "a coherent set of indie aesthetic values" - to be practically the most important thing going on with our audience.

It's not something that's often discussed, but it's a clear trend in the broadening of what people are listening to. Ryan's article may have addressed a seemingly narrow audience, but he's basically focusing on people who will listen to everything from electronica to underground hip-hop - but who have reservations about certain kinds of music: Top 40, which he's addressing here, and mainstream country being probably the most obvious, and both of them having strong corporate connotations.

Anyway, that's why I responded so strongly, but in an all-over-the-map kinda way. Again, sorry about the misunderstanding.

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Aw shit and I even spelled your name wrong ...

― Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 00:44 (twenty-two years ago)

the fact that he has to qualify a list like that with words like "innovative" is proof enough that he's frontin'. also, he misidentifies the producer of "Hey Ma" (which is one of the greatest songs ever, and it was DR Period, not Blaze, dammit).

― Al (sitcom), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 00:56 (twenty-two years ago)

All I meant when I brought up the great-production meme is that for whatever reason (more indie, less indie, I don't know) it WORKS usually as the best way to get people who are suspicious of Top 40 pop to listen closer or at least less dismissively to it. By which I mean it works better than the other obvious approaches of "This hit song affects me emotionally" (even if it does) and "Listen to the great tune dammit" (which invites a so-what).

In my insatiable curiosity I looked at the PFM bulletin board for the first time in aeons and the thread I found on this (a lot shorter than ours, wouldn't you know) seemed to flick between "Yes OK Ryan WE KNOW" and "B-b-b-but [insert song here] is shit!", so maybe a more successful way of doing it would have been to pick lots of obscuro pop and chart rap, if such a thing were possible.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 07:01 (twenty-two years ago)

tom's right - corny indie fuxx tend to place the artist before the art so much that you have to give them an artist to latch onto before they can allow themselves to enjoy the art

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:06 (twenty-two years ago)

people who will listen to everything from electronica to underground hip-hop

That's not exactly a broad church, is it?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:14 (twenty-two years ago)

The music mentioned, not the people who listen to it, obv.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:15 (twenty-two years ago)

James - that might be it yeah, I don't really know, with some people it is. I'm just saying that whether you're right or whether Sundar's right the efficacy of the method is proven (by NYLPM as much as anything).

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:23 (twenty-two years ago)

from a Justin Timberlake interview with....wait for it...Jim Derogatis -

"Q. You're a Southern boy like Elvis. I've been reading a new biography of

his manager, Colonel Tom Parker, and it's striking how little control Presley had of his own career. I've always wanted to ask you: How much control do you really have over what you're able to do artistically? It seems as if you have a lot more now than you had with 'N Sync. I mean, you're recording with the Black Eyed Peas, you're popping up onstage with the Flaming Lips ...

A. Honestly, I don't think I have control issues; I just do what I enjoy doing. Like that thing with the Flaming Lips: Wayne from the Lips approached me and said, "Hey, do you wanna come play bass with us?" And I was like, "Sure!" I sat there that night and I actually learned the bass part. Or rather, there wasn't a bass part in the song, so I wrote one. It was a simple thing to do. But I don't think I have control issues.

There's always so much emphasis on how much control artists have. Even with these new artists who've come up, like Avril Lavigne--I don't want to seem like I'm talking about people, but from what I've seen, it's like, "Well, is this real?" There's always that question. But all I can do is just do what I do, and people can judge it any way that they want.

It was so funny to me because on one hand, when I read the reviews of "Justified," they were like, "Wow, the Neptunes have never sounded like this. Timbaland has never sounded like this." Then, when the actual statements come forward when they want to review what Justin Timberlake's record was about, it's, "Well, he had the Neptunes and he had Timbaland pulling all the strings." Aren't these the same people who just said that these producers never sounded this good, or they never sounded like this before? I went through this whole thing of, like, "Well, didn't I have something to do with that? Doesn't me contributing the lyrics and the melodies have something to do with that?"

Finally, I was just like, "Screw it! People can say whatever they want to say." I don't make these records for the critics. I make them for people who want to listen to them, and I make them for myself."

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:30 (twenty-two years ago)

...and if anyone else likes it, it's a bonus!

(One of the ironies of 'pop vs indie' is that pop musicians and indie musicians give exactly the same interview, minus the bits about celebrity parties/ratty tour van hijinks)

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:33 (twenty-two years ago)

even the auteur theory was just (well maybe not "just") getting people to admit previously dismissed pop trash films were good by convincing them hawks/hitchcock/fuller/whoevah was an artist - convince someone that's someone's an artist and you're more than halfway towards convincing them that what they make is art.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Too right, Justin. And James. And also Tom.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:35 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, maybe it's just finally hearing 'senorita', but I'm really warming up to timberlake as an, ahem, artist.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:37 (twenty-two years ago)

yall will love this - "I had no expectations of what the crowd was gonna be, but I was really anxious to see what the demographic was gonna be. I've noticed here in the U.K.--and they're the most brutal market I think I've ever seen; your song is No. 1 one week and the next it's No. 52--what I've noticed is that the primary age range is, like, 23 to 27. And it's usually couples. It's like a gaggle of girlfriends, or I saw four or five guys that came together, and they were my age. I think when the crowd's like that, it changes the whole vibe of the show. It changes the aesthetic, because you're in the company of people your age."


the rest of it's here.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:41 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.fistoffun.net/book/16.jpg

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 10:07 (twenty-two years ago)

dom surely you're over that one

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 10:20 (twenty-two years ago)

corny indie fuxx tend to place the artist before the art so much that you have to give them an artist to latch onto before they can allow themselves to enjoy the art

-- nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (littlejohnnyjewe...), August 6th, 2003 5:06 AM. (James Blount)

Oh yeah, because only corny indie fuxx do that . . . that never happens on ILM.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 10:30 (twenty-two years ago)

The "aaaaaahhh" parts are great though!

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 10:48 (twenty-two years ago)

worst thread ever

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 11:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh yeah, because only corny indie fuxx do that . . . that never happens on ILM.


I think I see a theory!

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 11:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom made a really good point back there about how pop musicians and indie musicians give the same interviews. It's interesting that the ideals pop musicians seemingly hold regarding music would be seen as negative by the "intelligent" pop fan. Any CD:UK interview will concentrate purely on the music, how the artist has had "some song-writing input", how the artist is taking a more alternative route to singing/performing, how the artist really respects Oasis for "what they're doing maaan". Its a thousand ILM provoking cliches in one, yet the pop artist is still percieved as a maverick, zesty, pop kid. Not that many would give a fuck about a pop artists attitude to music (does anyone care that Pharrel's fav group is Rush or that a scary amount of heavy rap stars and producers are massive Phil Collins fans) but i suspect a fan of indie would feel "let down" or "betrayed" by his hero if he found out that its favourite singer was Justin Timberlake. When i watched the Flaming Lips at this festival doing "Can't Get You Out Of My Head" the crowds first reaction was "what the fuck?!" the second was "hahaha they're doing that crappy Kylie song off the charts hahahaha crazy guys! it's okay for us to dance and sing along to this inferior indie version because its an indie version! hahahah! yes!". And then you get the guy from Flaming Lips saying "Happy Birthday is the greatest pop song ever, dontchathink?" and the average Flaming Lips fan is like "man, i thought his favourite song would be like, "God Only Knows", i feel so betrayed, Kings Of Leon are my new favourite band they are real". The pop artist is celebrated over the indie artist but in reality they're both banal and vapid and are desperate to assert their rrrrrealness and authenticity/pink plastic and disposable-ness before a crowd of bear baiting indie fans/pop fans.

― sean g, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 11:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Authentic just means knowing what you're doing.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

It's got piss-all to do with how you do it.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

"worst thread ever"

Tsk it can't possibly be! I have that Lee & Herring book. Somewhere.

― DJ Mencap (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 12:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I see a theory!

Really? I thought I was just being snarky.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

of course ilm does it - this place is at least 80% corny indie fuxx now!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 17:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm sorry that you hate yourself so much, jb.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Eighty percent may be a conservative estimate.

― Larcole (Nicole), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Clearly I'm burned.

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)

"now"

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

haha!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

she was a struggling waitress in new york, but 3 thousand miles away she was the daughter they never knew

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

The pop artist is celebrated over the indie artist but in reality they're both banal and vapid and are desperate to assert their rrrrrealness and authenticity/pink plastic and disposable-ness before a crowd of bear baiting indie fans/pop fans.

C'mon. Give Benny a smile duder. Life's nothing but a bowl of cherries, innuit?

― ben welsh (benwelsh), Thursday, 7 August 2003 05:22 (twenty-two years ago)

from this sf guardian article (collection of articles about music wirting, actually):

http://www.sfbg.com/noise/2003-08/x_punctum.html

there is some OTM pitchfork mention. george chen states re: pf that:

"Most of the writing smacks of youth and its attendant failure to reference anything beyond its scope. Its cynicism feels unearned."

admittedly i have not read all posts here, but thought this line might have some relevance to the general debate. i guess that might be how i feel when reading an outlandish statement / opinion in pf and think "you can't say that!" not that a fact or opinion isn't valid but just that it's being used to either grab attention or really push an absurd idea too far to make a point. the opposite of this for me might be when reading the voice or something i actually have to sit down and parse out a backhanded sentence. at least the voice (less the new word limit laws) maybe expects a bit more mind muscle from its readers (unless you are amy phillips). in chen's terms pf seems like a less mature viewpoint, or at least one that comes off as over-eager and amateur. apologies if this has been touched on before...

― marcg (marcg), Thursday, 7 August 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

ugh, that last line

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 7 August 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login