please say today's pitchfork review of gang gang dance is a joke.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

my god. now I officially have no faith in the fork. that band is the worst ever. and what's worse is Chloe Sevningy is mentioned in the review. woo

― breezy, Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:44 (twenty years ago)

ALERT ALERT ALERT

PEOPLE B OFFERIN DIFFRENT OPINES, FOLKS SAY FOLKS ARE "DEAD WRONG"

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:55 (twenty years ago)

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:57 (twenty years ago)

I'm going to take that image of that guy wearing that shirt, and wear it around ironically.

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:57 (twenty years ago)

on a shirt

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

Don't be that guy.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 14 April 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

Be the guy the CRUNKED gun is pointing to.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 14 April 2005 16:05 (twenty years ago)

oh and I'll wear blackface

― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 14 April 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

Don't drink your juice in a style lab, homie.

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 14 April 2005 16:32 (twenty years ago)

that album is pretty awesome

― brokenfuses (brokenfuses), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:25 (twenty years ago)

Review here: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/g/gang-gang-dance/gods-money.shtml

I've never heard the band but I like Chloe Sevigny.

― Ian Riese-Moraine. To Hell with you and your gradual evolution! (Eastern Mantra), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:41 (twenty years ago)

as usual stylus gets it right
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=2910

― breezy, Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

Ooh, i like the sound of this! Does it actually marry free noisiness with rhythm? A lot of the new American noisy stuff is marred by crappy drumming, this might be more my thing.

― Good Dog (Good Dog), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

"amateurishly experimental distillations of world music through an urban No-Wave-y filter" does make this record sound really good to me, I have to agree, even it's meant dismissively.

― Hurlothrumbo (hurlothrumbo), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

i don't think that stylus review is good at all, and not because i like ggd or the album (i don't particularly the former; i haven't heard the latter). the idea that art has to serve itself up to the listener/viewer/beholder/whatever with some kind of easy-to-digest "comprehensibility" is fucking rubbish.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:57 (twenty years ago)

also i think the bard gehry building probably looks like shite on the back because of budget, solely. he don't work cheap.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 17:58 (twenty years ago)

xxxpost - the drumming is v. good i think, that and the bass are probably the highlights of the record.

― Amon (eman), Thursday, 14 April 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

What a turgid, pretentious review.

Normally, you'd think I was referring to the Pitchfork review, but not this time.

― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:29 (twenty years ago)

Ba-dump-chang!

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:33 (twenty years ago)

"the idea that art has to serve itself up to the listener/viewer/beholder/whatever with some kind of easy-to-digest "comprehensibility" is fucking rubbish."

I don't see that the reviewer's suggesting that at all. Here's the quote:

"Gang Gang Dance’s meandering, ethno-performance art-jamz hold a similar place as the Performing Arts Center—both in the sense of being flashy on the outside, dull when you get around the whole thing, and also in presenting no clear overall aesthetic—masking an ultimate lack of consistency and substantiality with a feeling of humid, dreamy gravity."

Those are direct criticisms of the music: dullness, no clear aesthetic, no consistency and substantiality

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:43 (twenty years ago)

saying something presents "no clear aesthetic" = you don't understand its aesthetic on its own terms, you would like it to be served up to you, you listen to the radio a lot and your name is tim.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:45 (twenty years ago)

"can somebody please tell me what this sounds like so i don't have to listen to it?"

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:47 (twenty years ago)

th' fork is correct in noting GGD's chloesque societyismz put people off, but it should also be noted that people like 'em for that same reason (in d-town nyc at least). Fame, fame, fame, fame, fame... buh-nuh-nuh-nah.

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:49 (twenty years ago)

you know, you should have put some of my bbq sauce on your unchicken. woulda tasted better, i bet.

― Ian John50n (orion), Thursday, 14 April 2005 19:53 (twenty years ago)

I AM VEY EXCITED TO HEAR THIS RECORD

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:07 (twenty years ago)

How do you know that he didn't understand the aesthetic? Maybe he was just saying that they do a bunch of stuff but it never amounts to much. And in doing all of this stuff -- and not doing it very well -- they haven't defined themselves as much of anything. (Note the substantiality criticism.)

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:08 (twenty years ago)

THIS THREAD HAS MADE ME TEH MORE EXCOTED

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:10 (twenty years ago)

unchicken is kind of like the Performing Arts Center, fried tastiness surrounding, well ... tofu.

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:11 (twenty years ago)

LACK OF CLARITY CAN BE AN AESTHETIC

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:13 (twenty years ago)

HMMMMMMM HMM YES

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:17 (twenty years ago)

some people are exasperated by aesthetics, others are aesthetically exasperated.

― noizem duke (noize duke), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:18 (twenty years ago)

I SEE

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:19 (twenty years ago)

I love this goddamned album.

― Waking Up Onstage at Jumbo's (Bent Over at the Arclight), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:27 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, of course lack of clarity can be an aesthetic you goddamn pedantic fussbudget. But again:

"Maybe he was just saying that they do a bunch of stuff but it never amounts to much. And in doing all of this stuff -- and not doing it very well -- they haven't defined themselves as much of anything. (Note the substantiality criticism.)"

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:30 (twenty years ago)

Sorry to curse.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:31 (twenty years ago)

i don't see much effort on the critic's part to try to understand their aesthetic (which is of course, different from actually saying it's good or worthwhile).

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:33 (twenty years ago)

why bother figuring out whether a review is otm or not if you haven't heard the record yet? this is why we are blessed with teh slsk!!!

― Amon (eman), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

that's why tim listens to the radio.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:53 (twenty years ago)

Well, I'm curious -- here are a few pull quotes. In describing the group (more specifically the album, which you say you haven't heard), what does he miss out on?

"meandering ethno-performance art-jamz"

"over stylized, self-consciously chintzy, and amateurishly experimental distillations of world music through an urban No Wave-y filter"

I'm not saying the reviewer's right. I'm just wondering how he is wrong, if indeed he is, or what it is that he missed out on.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:55 (twenty years ago)

I have never been less able to figure out what a band's aesthetic is based on comments on a thread about them.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:56 (twenty years ago)

"meandering ethno-performance art-jamz" = rather meaningless.

"over stylized, self-consciously chintzy, and amateurishly experimental distillations of world music through an urban No Wave-y filter" = similar

"doesn’t quite hit the marks of spiritual frenzy that a good structured improvisation seems like it should—the band just finds a lopsided groove and sits on it—nor does it feel like a collection of actual songs" = wtf? "the marks of spiritual frenzy that a good structured improvisation..." what does that even MEAN? esp. considering quite a NUMBER of improvisors say their music has nothing to do with spirituality whatsoever (read one derek bailey)!

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 20:59 (twenty years ago)

So, they're going for Bailey-like abstractness?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:00 (twenty years ago)

What does it MEAN? It means Ascension. It means Charles Gayle saying that when he plays he wants to go through the wall. It means Hindustani classical music.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

Ned, they kind of sound like The Residents and Black Dice and othe people. They're all ARTISTS so all the writing about them is WANKY.

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

i don't know! but saying "good structured improvisation" needs "spiritual frenzy" is dumb. not to mention that "structured improvisation" is somewhat of an oxymoron.

xpost - no it doesn't, tim.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

"spiritual frenzy"

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:03 (twenty years ago)

those aren't improvisations, those are musics with elements of improvisations.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:03 (twenty years ago)

frenzy.torrent

― Open your eyes; you can fly! (ex machina), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:04 (twenty years ago)

Oh give me a break! Most free jazz is primarily improvisation. Raga performances involve repetitions of the gat melody at the beginning and end -- otherwise, it's just a scale and a meter.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:05 (twenty years ago)

ie. those are music where the improvisation takes the structure to a different place.

as opposed to improvisation being the structure. totally different things.

i don't know what ggd's method is nor have i heard the album. i'd like to think if i did hear it and was intrigued or annoyed enough to care about it in some way (whether positively or negatively), i'd want to investigate what they were doing.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 14 April 2005 21:06 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 112 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

breezy- I didn't say that I couldn't believe that Pitchfork gave it a good review, and I don't agree with the blanket generalization about "crap 'noise' bands;" it's just too vague. There's nothing wrong with people liking this record, I just don't really have a good understanding of one big question, WHY? Admittedly, there's certainly nothing wrong with listening, enjoying, and just not asking "why." That's a whole other story.

― mike powell (mike powell), Friday, 15 April 2005 13:58 (twenty years ago)

yeah well I'm cool with making the generalizations. haha. I'm no critic. point being I liked the review. I find the album essentially lazy.

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:02 (twenty years ago)

maybe you're a lazy listener

― rizzx (rizzx), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:08 (twenty years ago)

hah. that's an easy comeback and entirely untrue. i've found way more "difficult" albums to be wonderful. just because someone doesn't like something or thinks it smells of lazy songwriting doesn't mean I'm not putting in the effort.

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

pitchfork gave excepter a great review too, is that hard to believe for you, breezy?

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:12 (twenty years ago)

cool, but when you say this, dont you think you are wrong to assume it is a lazy record?

― rizzx (rizzx), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:12 (twenty years ago)

"songwriting"

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:14 (twenty years ago)

just an opinion rizzx. obviously I can't say anything more than what I think. pure speculation. and yes cutty, I thought excepter was pretty crap as well.

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:15 (twenty years ago)

breezy. you don't like the band. you type as if you have never read a pitchfork review you disagreed with before. SHOCKING.

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:23 (twenty years ago)

an opinion, yeah.

― rizzx (rizzx), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:24 (twenty years ago)

now I officially have no faith in the fork

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

"the fork"

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

did you want pitchfork to validate your dislike of the band? are you unsure now of what to think?

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

thanks for that sarcastic insight cutty. i'm not looking for anyone to validate anything. just voicing an opinion here. that is what this board is for right cutty? but I appreciate the condescending tone. look I too can be sarcastic cutty!

― breezy, Friday, 15 April 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

MY PROBLEM IS YOU CANT SIT AROUND TH CAMP FIRE SINGING SONGZ NO MO

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:37 (twenty years ago)

purposeful obtuseness.

― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

I am about to listen to the record now. I will let you know if it sucks ass!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Friday, 15 April 2005 14:56 (twenty years ago)

Here's my take on it:
http://hippriest.blogspot.com

― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:33 (twenty years ago)

Here's my take on it:
http://hippriest.blogspot.com

― Brooker B (Brooker B), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

sorry 'bout the double post.

― Brooker Buckingham (Brooker B), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:40 (twenty years ago)

ILM IN DIDN'T LIKE PITCHFORK REVIEW SHOCKAH

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Friday, 15 April 2005 15:42 (twenty years ago)

I REALLY like this!

― Samuel Glickstein (nordicskilla), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:04 (twenty years ago)

"then they just shouldn't put out records"

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

Aw come on, you said that about the Killers.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

no i didn't.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:30 (twenty years ago)

Okay then.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:35 (twenty years ago)

Track 3 is the hotness.

― sleep (sleep), Friday, 15 April 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

i really, really like this!

― Aerodynamic (Aerodynamic), Friday, 15 April 2005 21:27 (twenty years ago)

" vocalist Lizzi Bougatsos emerges as a legitimate frontwoman: She knows her Living Theater and Picabia and feels at times like Karen O performing Kurt Schwitters' "Ur Sonata". "...........yikes

― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Friday, 15 April 2005 23:07 (twenty years ago)

Anyway, this thing KEEPS GETTING BETTER!

(And "Before My Voice Fails" DOES achieve "spiritual frenzy"!)

― Dr. Gene Scott (shinybeast), Friday, 29 April 2005 13:52 (twenty years ago)

i'm just annoyed that there is a band called gang gang dance and another called dance disaster movement. both names on their own are annoying enough (i swear, when will rock kidz stop talking about dancing already? it's become a weird fetish almost as bad as the fixation upon "making out"), but their combined existence makes the universe bend in places it shouldn't.

― philip sherburne (philip sherburne), Friday, 6 May 2005 01:56 (twenty years ago)

the name gang gang dance comes from a jazz record.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 6 May 2005 02:05 (twenty years ago)

This band name reminds me of Dance Dance Revolution. Oddly enough, one of the first people I saw play that game is apparently really into seeing lots of indie rock shows these days. Coincidence? I think not.

― mike h. (mike h.), Friday, 6 May 2005 03:27 (twenty years ago)

it's become a weird fetish almost as bad as the fixation upon "making out"

??..........................?

― Amon (eman), Friday, 6 May 2005 03:32 (twenty years ago)

indie rockers always talk about "making out." in flyers, in myspace testimonials, whatev. there's a weird peter pan syndromeness to the terminology - like we're all perpetually living in a john hughes movie. doesn't anyone just fuck any more?

― philip sherburne (philip sherburne), Friday, 6 May 2005 03:59 (twenty years ago)

now I feel dirty for liking it

― vanessa novaeris (novaeris), Friday, 6 May 2005 04:03 (twenty years ago)

2001 dude.

― A homunculus of Darby Crash, .... created for the purposes of *EVIL* (ex machina, Friday, 6 May 2005 04:05 (twenty years ago)

c'mon phillip. you're not even right about the origin of their name.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 6 May 2005 04:06 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

I just listened to the gang gang dance album.. it's kind of a boring mess of, for lack of a better term, "India-ness" with pretty moments in between the songs.

― donut e-g (donut), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 05:39 (nineteen years ago)

what the hell is the indie fixation on "making out"? somebody show me this!

― Mickey (modestmickey), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 15:50 (nineteen years ago)

eighteen years pass...

indie rockers always talk about "making out." in flyers, in myspace testimonials, whatev. there's a weird peter pan syndromeness to the terminology - like we're all perpetually living in a john hughes movie. doesn't anyone just fuck any more?
― philip sherburne (philip sherburne), Thursday, May 5, 2005 8:59 PM (eighteen years ago)

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:https://pitchfork.com+";philip+sherburne"+"making+out"
About 9 results (0.17 seconds)

🤨

― citation needed (Steve Shasta), Monday, 13 November 2023 07:52 (one year ago)

Lmao

― ian, Monday, 13 November 2023 13:21 (one year ago)

I miss GGD and was hoping this revive was about a new album. Anyone know what they're up to?

― Paul Ponzi, Monday, 13 November 2023 14:55 (one year ago)

xp sorry for pedantry, but that's not exactly a solid get if you click through to any of the results

― rob, Monday, 13 November 2023 15:01 (one year ago)

whoops sorry Phil... I mean "rob".

― citation needed (Steve Shasta), Monday, 13 November 2023 18:55 (one year ago)

your hair is everywhere

― a very very unfair (Neanderthal), Monday, 13 November 2023 19:07 (one year ago)

I’m not Phil, I’m treeship

― rob, Monday, 13 November 2023 20:18 (one year ago)

I'm a mummy

― a very very unfair (Neanderthal), Monday, 13 November 2023 20:20 (one year ago)

what prompted this revive

― I? not I! He! He! HIM! (akm), Monday, 13 November 2023 20:43 (one year ago)

I’m guessing boredom

― the new drip king (DJP), Monday, 13 November 2023 21:17 (one year ago)

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