Moby Review in the Voice

huh?

I'd respond to HZ, but I know eff all about He That Hates Kylie & Eminem.

So: Hate on him if you want. Me, I say visionary every time out is a rube's dream, and not only that, your dream is demanding, rube. I enjoy minor every bit as much as visionary, sometimes more. Oh, and the ambient disc? Textural more than compositional, Eno with Vangelis dreams. Convincing when it manages to evoke a beat, otherwise good for a massage. But definitely the "aural Xanax" its creator intends. I'd take it with me the next time I check into a hotel. Unless it's already there.

this isn't any actual anti-sampling rhetoric here! what it *is* saying, it seems, is something else that's also vaguely contentious: if the majority of your album, except for the good bits, are written and/or sung by you, then it might be time to think again about the quality of your writing/singing.

Read the second paragraph, and if you don't have any problems with it, my part of this discussion is over.

is this the offending bit? it's at least 68% a joke. maybe that's not enough for you, which i can understand. or was it the molly ringwald joke?

xpost

even if your all-time classic is essentially built from other people's songs and vocals

So in other words, it's bad that he tries to do things different from what made him famous and that those things aren't as good as what made him famous.
I don't care about the rockism angle, I was trying to beat everyone else to the punch with the hip-hop comment.

Should Moby only put the songs on his records that have proven successful formulas as such?

JESUS CHRIST IF I READ ONE MORE REVIEW WITH THE PHRASE "blues-gone-glam guitar" IN IT HEADS WILL ROLL

I don't think it's necessarily that as much as it's a direct comment about the album; namely Moby has some obvious strengths and is not really playing to them on this album. It's kind of like that period Mariah Carey just came out of where she did that hideous whisper-voice nonsense on every single song she released because it was "sexy", even though it sounded like utter ass.

1. "messianic" is used as a positive adjective for a popular musician
2. I have no idea what qualifies Moby's work as "visionary," and he uses the word "visionary" three times.
3. I never wanted to think about Joe Levy thinking about Molly Ringwald as a stripper, let alone fucking. You can call this petty, but I guarantee people's heads would be exploding if Jim DeRo made such statements.
4. I have no idea why the first paragraph is included, aside from what JoJo Dancer tells me.

yes, in other words that don't correspond in either form or content to the words you've quoted.

NB I have not heard this record and have no intention of hearing it. I'm just standing up for the (evidently) lost art of following written logic.

if it's what you say:
if the majority of your album, except for the good bits, are written and/or sung by you, then it might be time to think again about the quality of your writing/singing.

then why should he? to make critics happy? maybe he just made a record the way he wanted to make it, omg.
(n.b. i don't give a fuck about moby either, nor have i heard this record)

(as a conciliatory gesture, i'm telling you not to hear this album. or at least not the single, which is all i've heard. and wished i hadn't.)

*xposts that render this post worthless now exist*

guys, I'm not trying to be unreasonable.

I know blount, I'm being a bit facetious.

Not at all, I'm saying the question that follows that statement is fucking retarded.
Of couse it's OK for him to make any album he wants. Why waste a huge paragraph on that?

i should just be quiet now. i'm still a lil curious as to sara's problems with this.

ecchh-post

I'm not so sure it's a good sign when someone else's songs and someone else's vocals are the best things on your album, even if your all-time classic is essentially built from other people's songs and vocals.

I'm mostly marvelling at the sentence contruction here.
Would a Moby album based entirely on "someone else's songs and someone else's vocals" be a bad thing then? If he made one of entirely original music would that be better? At least then there wouldn't be things that are made from "someone else's songs and someone else's vocals" that are obviously better.

yet this review is the only one google turns up with that phrase...

I feel better now.

1. Sara has a blog?
2. Since when did ILM become livejournal?
3. It's times like this when I regret only having two middle fingers.

One of the most interesting thing about 80s revisionist nostalgia in middle-aged male culture critics is the fetishization of women they would have ignored and then ogling the 22-year-old version of that fantasy, who has no history or baggage, only fashion. Grown-up Stephs who want to slum with barely legal nu wave girls have a multitude of outlets. The Voice is usually one of the few places, above ground, where we can hear from the Andies of the world.
Posted by sara at March 25, 2005 04:11 PM

and I thought I was talking out of my ass just now.

btw, you geniuses are smart not to consider checking moby's blog. I just did and I regret it.

And it's a whoah oh oh oh oh
And it's a whoah oh oh oh oh
And it's a whoah oh oh oh oh
I said whoah whaoh oh, oh oh oh

Hear the cats cry
Liitle tortured babies in pain
Cracked necks by sttled limbs
They don't hesitate

And it's a whoah oh oh oh oh
Baby whoah oh oh oh oh
And it's a whoah oh oh oh oh
I said whoah, whoah, oh

There's some kinda love
And there is some kinda hate
I'm gonna tell you all about it now
The maggots in the eye of love won't copulate

And it's a whoah oh oh oh oh
Baby whoah oh oh oh oh
Baby whoah oh oh oh oh
I said whoah whoah oh, whoah oh

But then again I enjoy watching the videos from 18 cuz he's totally tripping balls. I guess I can't have it both ways.

http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/03.22.05.htm

FUCKS SAKE THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT.
I was gonna let that slide but...

ms. dawn asked the school to take down her name from the school's "alums who are worth shit" page when she got some minor record deal. cos no college graduate is 19, yagetme

http://www.rozzer.net/images/homer_drool.gif

Word count, dooder.

-- j blount

Still just a bit of fun perhaps, but I found the appropriate famous quote to back this up.

Rock journalism is people who can’t write, preparing stories based on interviews with people who can’t talk, in order to amuse people who can’t read. If one thing keeps rock and roll boring, besides the radio-station programmers and the record companies executives, it's the writings of rock and roll journalists. They decide if a group is good by listening to a couple of cuts from the first album - then if the second album is different, they write that the band is fucking up - it's not consistent. The rock press sends a message to performers that they should stay in their mold: “Don't change. If you do, we're going to say that your new record is a piece of shit”. Then the guy at the record company who knows nothing about music, except for what he reads in Rolling Stone, will read the review and think, “This group is dead - let's put the bucks into the next one”. - whereas a kid who listens to the record might make up his own mind and say, “Go fuck yourself, I like it”. For each type of music, there are listeners who think that reviewers don't know what they're talking about. These listeners, when excited about a certain group or style of music, will fight for it in their hometowns. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO STAY IN MUSIC THROUGH THE YEARS - AND I THANK THEM FOR IT.

-Frank Zappa

That comment has been reiterated in nearly every rock interview I've read with a serious discussion of music criticism.

Oh wait, so all of a sudden purpose is the true judge of the worth of things, eh? I mean, that's a completely tautological way of throwing cold water on any kind of activity that you don't like for whatever reason. I mean, come on, anyone could say the same about whatever musical activity you go after. Or anybody does. It's like telling someone their job/hobby/romantic activity is all well and fine but kinda pointless since it doesn't feed starving Africans or whatever. People everywhere, all the time, do things for which there's no readymade purpose attached except in some silly post-hoc fashion.

God forbid we allow the spread of ideas in one-way media. Obviously the advent of newspapers, magazines, etc. was nothing but social poison!!

I realized at an early age I had more of a way with words than songs, so I started a zine instead of a band.

These arguments are presented in the other threads. If you love music so much and have such a way with words, why not become a lyricist?

Curtis I didn't say that at all. You can't tell me that the mass media encourages people to think for themselves though, please.

I don't think this is irrelevent to this thread, btw.

1. This thread is started for the purpose of taking apart a review.
2. It is determined that if I have a problem with the paragraph that I have a problem with, I have a problem with music criticism in general.
3. I'm stating my problems with the form because this is a good place to get a justification straight from the horse's mouth.

define "objective information" and "real music fan" pls.

and why should everybody skilled with words use music the same way? what if they're skilled with different kinds of words? do you want everybody skilled with a guitar to use music the same way as well?

"This thread is started for the purpose of taking apart a review."

So music criticism IS part of a dialogue, right? You're admitting it now?

I'll admit that those arguments don't hold that much water, I'm thinking this through, guys! This is me you're talking to, I don't want a flame war.
Poor choice of words in some places, I know.

Folks, I already stated upthread that I know I'm talking out of my ass. I've never had this conversation with people who do this for a living before, and I know that I'm naive. Bear with me.

There are too many ways to find out about music these days, so much so that the "blind leading the blind" sentiment of Zappa's statement doesn't apply the way it might have in the past.

Many people read music critics because they enjoy reading about music, the same way that many people read political, financial, sports, etc. critics because they enjoy reading about politics, finance, sports, etc.

Many people read music critics because they enjoy reading about music, the same way that many people read political, financial, sports, etc. critics because they enjoy reading about politics, finance, sports, etc.

What I'm wondering is if there are good reasons besides that. I don't think there have to be.

Yes, the Zappa quote is outdated. But I have seen enough consensus among people on the net about things currently regarded as in vogue by critics to make me wonder sometimes,

increasingly, people don't rely on critics to be the gateway to good music.

yes, exactly. So it's just for fun then? I can live with that.

My posts on this thread have had no purpose besides marginal entertainment value as well. I'm not deludedly thinking I've made some great discovery here.

Um. What is the purpose of "actually" in that sentence and how its function different from an elitist stance on how people listen to music?

define "objective information"
release dates, tour dates, transcripts of band interviews.

what would these "things" be? (not arguing here; just curious. if your net pals are in bands who sound like dave matthews, creed, or good charlotte, they might have a point. though i probably wouldn't like their bands, and neither would most critics. which is what their point is, obv.)

"people don't rely on critics to be the gateway to good music."

I'm not sure they ever did use them as THE gateway, which is why zappa's sour grapes never made much sense in the first place. There was always radio, TV, concerts, friends, dance clubs, jukeboxes, etc. And good reviews never really meant good record sales. Also I'm not convinced people use critics less as A gateway now than they ever have, though i'd be interested in hearing arguments to the contrary.

There was always radio, TV
And we all know how fair these mediums have been to music.

Have you ever read any of my posts on other threads? I belive I once said that Creed should play a concert on a rocket headed straight into the sun.

Two points I'd like to make clear since company is running late.
1. Wondering aloud whether criticism serves a purpose besides entertainment is not saying that it needs to. I just asking if anyone feels that it does. Most people don't believe music is anything more than entertainment.

2. The irony of pontificating on a message board about all this is not lost on me. Try another angle if that's what you're thinking.

Which means you have some of the same prejudices that most rock critics do. Creed-style music is probably the last "thing currently in vogue among critics." So why shouldn't musicians in Creed-style bands complain about people who think the way you do? You're obviously completely biased.

I'm sure they would! I'm not advocating doing away with anything here, or changing the way music criticism is executed. I don't know where that is coming from.

why should everybody skilled with words use music the same way? what if they're skilled with different kinds of words? do you want everybody skilled with a guitar to use music the same way as well?

I'm not sure I understood this one, but if you're saying that music criticism is as valid a contribution to the art of music as writing lyrics for music, I don't personally feel that way, sorry.

Miccio if you don't like this thread I suggest you ignore it.

And come to think of it, so are all your friends in bands. Every one of whom makes decisions about what music is more worthy than other music. So if objecivity is what you're after, why should their opinion be more valid than critics? Neither is more objective than the other. If you don't like hearing opinions, why listen to music at all? When is music is not an opinion about music?

Because dedicating your life to the writing and/or performing of music is not a lightly made decision. It more or less guarantees poverty and failure, with a very small exception.

" dedicating your life to the writing and/or performing of music is not a lightly made decision. It more or less guarantees poverty and failure, with a very small exception. "

And music criticism is different than that how, exactly? (And are you saying that all professions and pasttimes with a high risk of poverty are by definition laudable? I can think of many that would be a complete waste of time, myself!)

And certainly you are not naive enough to believe that everyone in a band is "dedicating their life to music" anyway, right?

I'm saying I, ME and the musicians whose opinions I respect that I know personally. My father has slugged it out in bar bands for 20 years and lived in relative squalor. He's NEVER gonna stop and get a well paying career.

I already answered this.
(I apologize to critics who really feel they'd die if they couldn't criticize music in print, but I would die if I could no longer write or play music)

it's "objective" to believe that Weezer has nothing to do with people playing AC/DC at parties, and that Moby has nothing to do with John Hughes? Why?? Why is omitting such variables from the discussion smart? And how is including them by definiton not "serious" or "analytical"? And why is "serious" better anyway?

These type of reviews oftentimes ignore the actual music on the recording almost completely, though the Moby review did not. They function more as entertainment than analysis, which is more valid for the reasons Dan just stated.

no you didn't.

Dedicating your life to the writing of music criticism is not a lightly made decision. It more or less guarantees poverty and failure, with a very small exception.

hell fucking no.

Dedicating your life to the writing of music criticism is not a lightly made decision. It more or less guarantees poverty and failure, with a very small exception.

Would you kill yourself without music criticism? I would kill myself without music, or at least descend into heavy drug addiction.

Now my company is here, I must go.

Thank you Miccio, that's what I was looking for. I'm sorry if I offended you with that comment. I would trust a music critics opinion on writing more than a musicians. Unless the musician was a lyricist ;)

i would kill myself without tacos

I'm sure you think I'm joking. I guess it doesn't matter to me.
OK, last post for now.

I haven't made a living doing anything for the last couple of years. I have been the full-time diaper-changer/fry-cook here and Maria has been bringing home the bacon(maria is a freelance translator and she is very very successful at it.). And we've got another little one on the way, so, *sigh*, it will be a while before I can do anything full-time. I have written a lot more in the last 2 years than I ever thought possible though. And I am EXTREMELY excited to be writing for Decibel Magazine. It is by far the most enjoyable gig I have landed since I started writing for the Voice. So, go buy a copy at Borders cuz I want them to stay around for a long time. Even before the kid though, I always had some other job. Needless to say, I've always appreciated the extra money that writing brought in. It has really come in handy over the years. My self-imposed limitation is: I have very little interest in writing features/interviews/profiles. And that is how you can end up making enough money to live on. I'm just not a journalist. I like writing reviews.

okay, back to your thread. i'm gonna read it now and see what's going on.

Shouldn't this generally be avoided. You can argue all day about the gray shades of objectivity, or the pretense thereof, and the circumstances under which such a unique viewpoint can be achieved. But isn't it just plain unprofessional to review work by one's friends and neighbors, or even friendly acquaintances? I realize this is probably a harder feat for those among certain New York circles than it would be in other locales, but still, it's almost as if he's boasting about being friends with Moby - which seem both unprofessional and kind of pompous.

fwiw, the album is a piece of shit, Levy's out of his mind for thinking "Temptation" is the best thing on the album, and I didn't care that much for the review as a piece of writing.

not unavaoidable, DESIRABLE. who the hell reads criticism for its "objectivity"? anyway, when you become a journalist it's simple--just don't review your artist friends' work!

-- j blount (jamesbloun...), March 26th, 2005.

just wondering, but how did plebes like you and your ILM buddies get P&J ballots then ?

INTENTIONAL FALLACY, or INTENTIONALISM: The judging of the meaing or value of a literary work against the external context of the author's stated intentions, deduced purpose, or presumed attitudes. Such a judgment is mistaken from a formalist critical perspective because it mislocates meaning and privileges evidence external to the text

(Actually, all of them suck except for "What Love." (Which is awesome!!!))

One of the annoying things about people bitching about criticism is this idea that "the critics" are some weird disconnected bunch whose opinions of what constitutes a decent album are somehow wildly different from those of the people complaining. And yeah, if it was like a 70-year-old Pentecostal woman saying that, it'd carry some weight. But for anyone on this site apart from random googlers to complain about the irrelevance of "the critics" is jus, well, preposterous.