ILM namedrops in the press

Double Shocker from Canada!!!

bitter fuxx from trashy free weekly and fading used-to-be good and relevent boho paper now my god can anyone get through an article name drops ilx - the place where the writers post in a desperate norma desmond type way. i'm off to shotgun blast my own head off, now.

Dre abandons album. The 'webboarder' was me. Ah well.

(admit have not read the previous post)

I see this as a potentially great career move for you. It can only help improve the syntax of your sentences.

I found the "ilm poster" reference annoying for the reason jaymc pointed out.

http://ilx.wh3rd.net/category.php?catid=50

Is this one?!

Back when he was Five, Ben Folds made punk rock for wussies. With a goofy drawl and sloppy piano-fisting (SFW, natch), Folds alternately threw stones and built glass houses. He'd mock a too-cool coterie of nose-ringed goths and closeted ex-Cure fans (ah, those innocent pre-Killers 1990s!), then let his guard down for ballads about heartbreak and, yes, the abortion that hurtled the Five through fame's window like a post-Final Four student rioter's "Brick". His hipster-baiting, sincerity and modest fame guaranteed a few nasty reviews, sure. Still, Folds challenged cred-consciousness before crying "rockist!" was OTM. Wussy, yes, but worthy.

www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/f/folds_ben/songs-for-silverman.shtml

and this bitchy article about it -- http://blaggblogg.blogspot.com/2005/06/music-critics-are-stupid-and-pointless.html

lol @ the people in the comments trying to figure out was "otm" means and coming up with "over the moon"

lololol

how come no one posted the pitchfork Steely Dan record review here yet?

Lemme get this straight: Awesome French house duo Justice is launching a fashion line ... and all they've got are some generic-looking hipster jeans and leather jackets (pictured)? I mean, I guess they're cool and all, but I just can't get behind this. No magically morphing t-shirts à la the "D.A.N.C.E." video, no credibility!

haa

For the record, OTM is a favored abbreviation of I Love Music, a forum Pitchfork correctly (for once) describes as a "music critic circle jerk." It's short for "on the money," or "on the mark," something like that. If you really want to feel some self-loathing, check out ilxor.com.

The funny thing about that comment is that, while skewering Pitchfork and music criticism may be OTM (!), ILM is pretty much free of the vices attributed to these sources, regardless of how many crits hang out in ILM. It's music fans talking about music, not music crits trying to blow smoke up gullible readers' butts.

"Though its title suggests otherwise, "Cool Love #1" is actually not a long-lost Fagen/Becker 70s basement jam (sorry, Ilx!)...:

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/download/41243-blitzen-trapper-cool-love-1-mp3

If you really want to feel some self-loathing, check out ilxor.com

otm

The thing about these little references in criticism and on blogs is that sometimes you can't recognize if the person is actually an ILXor.

The phrase that sums this up = "dependency breeds contempt"

Discussion of things on the internet is increasingly just one giant festival of pre-emptive schadenfreude

I have seen several cases of people in RYM's discussion forum referencing to acts as "owns this thread" etc. Is this something they have picked up here as well?

hah nabsico i read that as decency breeds contempt as was like ok fair enough

the ilm-mtv throwdown: it is so on

^that shit was just weird

Geir: No, that's not an ILX-specific thing.

wtf using 'OTM' in an album review - this is like bringing your kids to work or something

haha

am dropping 'no will arnett, no credibility' into a review right now.

I don't think Pitchfork of all things really counts as "the press" because I'd expect pretty much everyone involved to have at least a passing familiarity with ILX.

except the reader

I wonder if there are any in-jokes or catch phrases on the Pitchfork staff board that they drop into reviews.

you need to go undercover and find out. it'll be like the departed.

surprised no one posted this:

http://idolator.com/378355/oh-pitchforkpaws

since idolator is really just an extension of ilm i'm not sure that counts

Yeah, I was going to mention this...

http://idolator.com/tunes/more-songs-about-buildings-and-traffic/brooklyn-academy-of-music-to-new-york-city-no-sufjan-no-credibility-264802.php

...but it's Jess, after all.

haha and first comment is me calling him out for not even getting to noon on (i think) his first day guest blogging there without making a blatant ILM reference.

Not a direct ref, but:

As Scott Plagenhoef, editor of the tastemaker Web site Pitchfork Media recently wrote in response to charges that his site's 2009 year-end list had a disproportionate indie bias, "This is what rock music made by and for adults looks and sounds like now."

http://www.slate.com/id/2248243

that sentence does a great job of making the pfork aesthetic sound even more boring than it is!

adults is kinda a random qualifier to throw in there

Context, from Do we have a PAZZ AND JOB 2009 thread yet? :

in general, I don't see why it's weird to anyone that nominally indie rock is at the top of this. Rock music made by 20s and 30somethings presumably *always* was pretty well at the center of this stuff. Today almost any of that stuff that gets any critical traction is under the pointless tent of 'indie', whether its yyys or lcd or spoon or hold steady or some tiny band in williamsburg - or hell even electronic (v acoustic/electric) artists like mia or hot chip or anco. The change is with rock music more than it is with critics. This is what rock music made by and for adults looks and sounds like now.

that sentence does a great job of making the pfork aesthetic sound even more boring than it is!

Only if you're weirdly biased against "rock music" and "adults."

check and check for my part.

"rock music made by and for adults"

=

dad rock

that carducci piece is making me listen to milo goes to college by descendents, this is the least adult rock music ever made!

but

not all rock music for adults or by adults is bad...or rock music for grandpas is good...like robert wyatt is way awesome, he's even better than rhianna

Dad rock isn't boring by default, though. Some is, some isn't.

It links over here, too. I think someone should send in a correction, though, because Scott wasn't talking about alleged indie bias in the Pitchfork list, he was talking about alleged indie bias in Pazz & Jop

This is a particularly weird error to have in there given that the piece is by Zach Baron, who now works for the Voice

In other words, instead of saying "charges that HIS site's 2009 year-end list..." it should say "charges that MY site's 2009 year-end list"

I don't think the "adult" qualifier is meant to connote "boring stuff for old people"; it's just meant to eliminate Hot Topic-ish bands. The question came up on the original thread: Are there any critically acclaimed rock bands that have debuted in the last decade that aren't considered "indie"? If not, then "indie" is another word for what we used to just call "rock."

I don't think the "adult" qualifier is meant to connote "boring stuff for old people"; it's just meant to eliminate Hot Topic-ish bands

A lot of adults seem to like them too!

Are there any critically acclaimed rock bands that have debuted in the last decade that aren't considered "indie"?

Probably!

If not, then "indie" is another word for what we used to just call "rock."

But I bet a lot of what you would call indie, I would not call rock.

That only proves how broad the term has become and why it's a little silly to rail against "indie bias" as though it were still a niche genre/sensibility.

it proves how meaningless the term is

Well, this is exactly the general-audience spin on it Baron's found for Slate -- you know, that a Gen-X "indie"-type sensibility is now closer to just middle-class adult rock, with big Pavement reunion as hook

The link to Scott actually encompasses what Que's saying, I think, which is that we lump all sorts of critic-loved stuff (only some of which is rock) under some baggy umbrella of "indie"

haha "incredibly broad" versus "meaningless" is not really an argument with very different options

Rock:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed36UQX8kXQ

Folk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93v6eoTjpig

Everyone can presumably agree, yes? Now who wants to do the one for indie?

haha "incredibly broad" versus "meaningless" is not really an argument with very different options

hey i'm not the one who throws the word around all the time! i mean, why people are using meaningless terms is their problem.

well, I mean, I think it's anything but meaning-free -- people use it to refer to things in totally different ways, and I'm interested in what different people are pointing to when they say it. just saying that whether you want to go "this concept is really broad and complex and I'm curious how you're using it" or "fuck it, I don't even know what that means anymore so I'm just going to ignore it" is not necessarily a huge difference opinion about the idea itself.

From the slate article:

And boomer self-satisfaction is such that we will probably have to pry the mic stand out of Mick Jagger's sinewy, scarf-draped hands before passing it to a younger generation. That is, if we even want to—because if the signature move of the baby boomer is obsessing over his own demise, then the signature move of the post-boomer is the capacity to be puzzled at our own success. The slacker indifference to accomplishment for which Pavement were beloved, and after which countless successor bands (and fans) modeled themselves, does not make for easy triumphalism.

the author of the article takes the cliche about Generation X being full of devil-may-care slouchers, which may or may not have been the case (and isn't the point), and wrongfully paints subsequent generations with the same brush. For one, I really don't think slacker indifference and confusion over success really describes the facebook generation.

just saying that whether you want to go "this concept is really broad and complex and I'm curious how you're using it" or "fuck it, I don't even know what that means anymore so I'm just going to ignore it" is not necessarily a huge difference opinion about the idea itself.

you're kidding, right? on the one hand, someone wants to explore the idea. on the other, the person doesn't care about the idea. that's a Grand Canyon of difference.

still waiting for that perfect indie youtube, let me know when you find it okay?

"folk" is as nebulous and baggage-intensive as indie, unclear whether it's defined by audience or musicians. if i was going to pick one track to stand for folk tho, it would not be a tune inspired by henry mancini

Excuse the wonkish tone I'm about to write in, but re: indie and its expansion as a subculture and as a word. When thought in terms of economics it's the internet bringing the cost of knowledge down. Before the last decade, if you wanted to be a hipster, a music nerd, Mr. Indie, etc. you had to spend a lot of money buying the music, had to keep up with the latest releases/magazines etc, probaly had to have a certain social background or circle of friends, etc. but with the internet the costs of entering certain social circles went down, and so it took much less effort, money, time etc. to acquire the appropriate knowledge, so to speak.

If it became a pain in the neck to follow and acquire again then we'd probably go back to the old indie v.s. mainstream dichotomy, because so many current indie folk would "drop out" so to speak.

If *music* became more of a pain....

"folk" is as nebulous and baggage-intensive as indie, unclear whether it's defined by audience or musicians. if i was going to pick one track to stand for folk tho, it would not be a tune inspired by henry mancini

yeah, it was just a quick example. and i think folk is a lot more easily defined than this indie thing no one can seem to, uh, define.

some of this indie music is still pretty painful iirc

i don't really want you to try and define folk but it has such wide usage i've never seen where you could even start. confusion over indie seems comparatively short-lived and fresh

sooth the pain of indie w/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TpvTEb4BaQ

of course fahey did a pretty loose cover, stealing chords from noted illiterate downtrodden musician gustav holst

like I said, Que, that's not a big difference of opinion about the idea itself, it's just a difference in how much you give a fuck

like i said nabisco: Grand Canyon

^^^^ p good indie song iirc

totally!

nabisco, let me give you a hint on why the two theoretical people have different ideas about the thing itself. i'll use verbs.

on the one hand: "I'm curious"

on the other: "I'm just going to ignore it"

both of those people can agree what the thing IS

this isn't THAT complicated, is it?

que is trolling you, nabisco

and then some.

The only reason to care about this is so you can sort your iTunes genre tags out.

see, you can solve this by treating genre terms as attributes, rather than pigeonholes.

that doesn't help with itunes though, granted.

The only reason to care about this is so you can sort your iTunes genre tags out.

ding ding ding

aggressive i dont give a fuck stances are nagl imo

if u really dont give a fuck prob u shouldnt be posting on this thread

hello indie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoH5MPIgM7c

morning to you, brotha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcgyKo7vbm4

lol was mr. que really claiming that "indie" is a meaningless term while "rock" is a v. useful and meaningful one?

never change que

yeah, dude, the Rolling Stones aren't rock

Cunga, that's an interesting point. The biggest difference is probably for people who aren't in big cities. The quickest way to get up to speed on what's new and cool is to hang out with other people who are interested in and know a lot about what's new and cool and that's obviously difficult in rural areas. Growing up, I remember not being able to FIND certain albums, even if I wanted them, even in major urban areas. Now anyone with a what.cd account can spend a couple months boning up on every major hipster genre and become bona fide experts, even if they're doing it from their basement in Oklahoma. Discovering Marquee Moon would have been the ne plus ultra, now it's just a basic starting point. It's hard to imagine, say, the Arcade Fire becoming as big as they were if people were forced to spend $18 to hear Funeral after reading Pitchfork's review.

Before the last decade, if you wanted to be a hipster, a music nerd, Mr. Indie, etc. you had to spend a lot of money

not really true, but i guess that depends how you define "a lot."

had to keep up with the latest releases/magazines etc

probably true

probaly had to have a certain social background or circle of friends, etc.

definitely not true

it all seems so hard now to imagine how anyone did anything at all before the internet but somehow people who were neither rich nor popular found out about mission of burma and rem and slint and pavement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_6vnKiowzk

This is what indie meant in the late 80s/early 90s and the baseline of what people are talking about when I see them use the term.

^ major label release fwiw

The idea that The Beatles will be forgotten and irrelevant once the baby boomers die out is absurd. There are a lot of Beatles fans born in the late 50s or later. What is already happening, though, is that other (and later) acts are increasingly being cited alongside Beatles as just as important, and The Beatles aren't the one and only most important name like they may be for some baby boomers. For instance, the importance of Kraftwerk, David Bowie and The Smiths are increasing (and, well, probably also James Brown, George Clinton and early hip-hop pioneers in some circles, although fans of "black" music have a tendency to be less interested in the "canon" and more interested in the here and now)

not my experience of jazzheads but nm

fans of "black" music have a tendency to be less interested in the "canon" and more interested in the here and now

OK, that's true of fans of all music; and anyway hiphop takes the canon as its subject and sonic foundation in ways no prior music had, so what's with singling out black (or "black") music?

it all seems so hard now to imagine how anyone did anything at all before the internet but somehow people who were neither rich nor popular found out about mission of burma and rem and slint and pavement.

― fact checking cuz, Friday, 19 March 2010 14:10 (1 hour ago) Bookmark

tape-swapping !

OK, that's true of fans of all music

Not true of Mojo readers, for instance, no.

True enough. But I didn't say it was true of all fans of all music. (Though I'll amend my first response: fans of classical music are pretty heavily interested in the canon.)

Your point was that music fans have a tendency to be less interested in the canon than the here and now. The fact that certain subsets of music fans (Mojo readers, hiphop heads) have a different tendency doesn't mean it's not true. I mean, most people are more interested in the present than in history.

Singling out fans of "black" music for this tendency just seems more wrong the more you think about it. Do you count jazz as a "black" music? Jazz fans I know are pretty invested in the canon & view the here and now, at least in part, in terms of its relation to the canon.

But it's really a false opposition; the canon exists as part of the here and now.

Your point was that music fans have a tendency to be less interested in the canon than the here and now.

Note that with music fans I mean music geeks, not the ordinary average man on the street. In fact, the average man on the street probably couldn't care less about either the canon or the here and now, unless he is still in his teens.

But sure, fans of R&B/hip-hop/funk aren't the only ones who tend to not care so much about anything else about the here and now. You could say the same about those who dig Britney Spears, Lady Gaga and Avril Lavigne, for instance. It's just that I don't really consider them music fans in the truest sense.

But, yes, jazz fans are interested in the canon. With "black" music I mean fans of hip-hop, R&B, funk etc. (Even rock is black music considering its roots, but jazz or rock isn't what I meant in the first place)

doesnt make ur point any less bs

saying that R&B fans aren't interested in the canon shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

so, like, quit while you're behind

saying that R&B fans aren't interested in the canon shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

So, why don't those 60s Motown albums sell better then? Remember canon=ALBUMS, not singles!

feels really weird to claim authority on the priorities of a set of fans of a genre of music you dont care abt

Remember canon=ALBUMS, not singles!

u crazee

So which R&B albums from before 1970 are considered important then? (And when I say R&B I mean R&B, not jazz)

u double crazee

So which R&B albums from before 1970 are considered important then

jesus christ shut up. albums weren't even the standard format for popular music prior to like 1967

Sell better than what? Diana Ross has sold over 100 million albums, Michael Jackson continues to sell millions of albums, Aretha Franklin not only sold bazillions but won every Grammy under the sun and was the first female artist inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, etc etc etc...

You do not have any clue what you are talking about because of your stunning tunnel vision.

http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/james-brown-live-apollo-lg-86976203.jpg
http://www.redimg.net/archivos/262/Covers/07%20Aretha%20Franklin%20I%20Never%20Loved%20a%20Man%20the%20Way%20I%20Love%20You%20Atlantic.jpg
http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/iero/imgs/c/e/ce725bcd.jpg

r&b was a form that was birthed by SINGLES not albums

yah, that's what i meant when i said GeirBot u crazee

hey geirbot u a fool, get lost

mr que you hate everyone now?

hip hop is TOTALLY invested in its own canon its totally bizarre to suggest otherwise. its constantly referencing its own history, the very building-blocks of the genre (sampling break beats) is canonical at its very core, I know tons of hip hop fans (like, say, ME) who don't give much of a shit for the here and now of the genre compared to its (arguable) golden age of the late 80s/early 90s etc

xp

I only recently heard paid in full for the first time, and i felt like i knew every single line the whole thing had been quoted so much

r&b was a form that was birthed by SINGLES not albums

Which makes it non-canonical by definition. The Canon is about the album as an artistic statement, not about the pop single as a commercial success. The Canon is built upon the values of classical music, not upon the values of popular music.

lolz do tell which classical albums from pre-1900 are in the canon

the canon originates in biblical teaching so deciding that something that came after is foundational to its structure is O_o also

And note that there was no rock canon at all until the baby boomers invented it. The idea of a rock history didn't exist until the late 60s. Before that, also white music geeks would only care about the here and now.

I mean basically your position is there is no musical canon prior to 1965 or so? wtf

xp

really, which beatles albums are not the teachings of the lord?

lolz do tell which classical albums from pre-1900 are in the canon

A lot of symphonies, and operas are. And they are there as full symphonies and operas, not as just one popular movement pasted from a symphony.

i remember that summer, in the studio, layin down tracks with handel

I mean basically your position is there is no musical canon prior to 1965 or so?

There is a jazz canon, and a classical canon. But really not a rock canon. Save for maybe "A Hard Day's Night", very few rock albums from before 1965 are ever seen in lists of the best albums ever. This in spite of the fact that rockers had been making albums since the mid 50s.

man, the day beethoven came up with that dun-dun-duhn-duhhn intro, everyone in the studio was so stoked, we knew we had a hit on our hands

BAN GEIR

There is a jazz canon, and a classical canon

which are not album-based. but when it comes to r&b, all of a sudden, it's required to be album-based! wow how does that work

how about the blues canon, can we throw that in there too?

and country. is there a country canon? the Carter Family didn't make albums.

The jazz canon is definitely album based. "Kind Of Blue", "A Love Supreme" etc.

geir the point he is trying to make is that the album as the unit of canonicity in rock music is no more legitimate than sheet music is to classical, singles to R&B. The notion of canonicity is so much older than the invention of the rock album, that to claim it sets precedence for other genres of music is givin me eczema on my head

I would say blues and country are largely about the here and now. Those Gram Parsons, Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson albums that are often cited tend to be cited by rock fans rather than country fans.

The jazz canon is definitely album based. "Kind Of Blue", "A Love Supreme" etc.

poor Louis Armstrong, no canon for him! You neither Ellington, or Basie, or Bix Beidercecke. get the fuck outta here

I would say blues and country are largely about the here and now.

oh yeah no common thread of tradition or respect for history in either of those forms, nosiree

why I bet Dwight Yoakam has never even HEARD of Hank Williams

http://www.countrymusichalloffame.org/full-list-of-inductees

As for Satcmo, Ellington etc. Well, they are part of jazz history, but hardly the jazz acts that are still being referenced and checked out. That is rather "Kind Of Blue". Just the way Elvis Presley is definitely considered part of rock history, yet very few of his albums perform very well in those albums of all time lists.

The notion of canonicity is so much older than the invention of the rock album, that to claim it sets precedence for other genres of music is givin me eczema on my head

you might even say it was *gasp* ROCKIST to do so

xp

As for Satcmo, Ellington etc. Well, they are part of jazz history, but hardly the jazz acts that are still being referenced and checked out.

this is fucking retarded, not to mention completely wrong

like, I think Stanley Crouch and the Marsalis bros (and Ken Burns lol) would disagree with you

N:LMSFbh OIUPD&() å•w7yd f8=rgomiasplkdhnu askdgjhjdf;lkj ppprygud 09aw dogf kh;sdj afspouq3r7[lddrlkn;s elkf;djd;oifgeopij gopmwerhh sdASGFFFFFAWrgAWG

goddamn it geir

"Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington were (and are) two of the main stems of jazz. Any way you look at it, just about everything that's ever happened in this music leads directly -- or indirectly -- back to them."
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gzfyxqegldse

"For the casual fan, disc one will provide the thrills, but disc two offers serious fans insights into the process of collaboration between the two most important jazz musicians of the 20th century."
http://jazztimes.com/articles/11516-the-great-summit-complete-sessions-louis-armstrong-duke-ellington

xpost: agreed, that's what I meant by saying hiphop takes the canon as it's subject and foundation; there'd BE no hiphop without its relation to earlier recorded music.

Not sure why, after years here, this would be the first issue I'd start a Geirfight over, but it's been kind of like boxing a shadow; he's redefined pretty much every noun phrase in his original post (only geeks are "fans," only teens care about the canon but they aren't true fans, only hiphop/R&B is "black," only albums are canonical). Those redefinitions are all wrong of course. I suppose it's sort of gratifying that he's done something different here than his standard blithe refusal to engage in a conversation about what he's saying.

those guys dunno what they're talking about - jazz canon is strictly 1960-1970, Geir said so

xp

that xpost was for you Shakey

blues and country are largely about the here and now

seriously can't get over this one in particular either. yeah, nothing's more CONTEMPORARY and obsessed with the present than the blues. Why just the other day I heard a poor sharecropper moanin about the twitter

A+

was followed by autotuned harmonica solo

autotune harmonica sounds kinda rad actually

i LOVE the new taylor swift single, "are you sure shania done it this way?"

(actually, now that i think about it, taylor should write and record that, stat.)

lol

geir otm

dare you to say that three times in a mirror

at midnight

Off The Meds?

I ignore categories whose boundaries I can't discern. What do you all do?

(By the way, this thread revival has ruined this thread's potential usefulness, should we come to learn in July that jaymc has mentioned ILX on Jeopardy.)

blues and country are largely about the here and now

seriously can't get over this one in particular either. yeah, nothing's more CONTEMPORARY and obsessed with the present than the blues. Why just the other day I heard a poor sharecropper moanin about the twitter

― famous for hating everything (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, March 19, 2010 10:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

lmao

quality post

http://www.gro-beak.com/pics/namedrop.gifhttp://www.gro-beak.com/pics/namedrop.gifhttp://www.gro-beak.com/pics/namedrop.gif

seriously can't get over this one in particular either. yeah, nothing's more CONTEMPORARY and obsessed with the present than the blues.

Blues is largely about form. The blues form is a very old one, but it is being used by various (often amateur) musicians in the here and now rather than the old bluesmen's albums being bought as back catalogue items to a particularly large extent.