YAY KELEFA!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Kelefa in New York Times on Rockism with an ILM mention!

― Paul (scifisoul), Saturday, 30 October 2004 15:24 (twenty years ago)

check Sunday's Art's section - here's a website link - posts tomorrow?
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/arts/music/index.html

― Paul (scifisoul), Saturday, 30 October 2004 15:25 (twenty years ago)

incoming - roll up those sleeves!

― Paul (scifisoul), Saturday, 30 October 2004 15:29 (twenty years ago)

oops - we're listed as ilovemusic.com

ah well, the smart ones'll find us anyway - guess that rules out rockists, ho ho

― Paul (scifisoul), Saturday, 30 October 2004 15:43 (twenty years ago)

http://www.ilovemusic.com/PH%20redirect%20button.gif

― W i l l (common_person), Saturday, 30 October 2004 15:46 (twenty years ago)

KELEFA WE LOVE YOU! IF YOURE EVER IN CHI_TOWN HOLLA AT YA BOY

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 30 October 2004 21:22 (twenty years ago)

This article was really good.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 30 October 2004 21:36 (twenty years ago)

NOT ILOVEMUSIC.COM AGAIN??!?

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Saturday, 30 October 2004 23:38 (twenty years ago)

"Much of the most energetic resistance to rockism can be found online, in blogs and on critic-infested sites like ilovemusic.com, where debates about rockism have become so common that the term itself is something of a running joke. When the editors of a blog called Rockcritics Daily noted that rockism was 'all the rage again,' they posted dozens of contradictory citations, proving that no one really knows what the term means. (By the time you read this article, a slew of indignant refutations and addenda will probably be available online.)"

Yeah, way to pre-empt the criticism that'll come your way, dude.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:19 (twenty years ago)

Anyway, maybe the fact that everybody's use of "rockism" seems inconsistent with everyone else's doesn't show that nobody knows what it means, but that the idea contains multitudes and that sometimes these multitudes are at odds at each other.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:26 (twenty years ago)

i think the article elucidates that point pretty well, to wit: "Like rock 'n' roll itself, rockism is full of contradictions: it could mean loving the Strokes (a scruffy guitar band!) or hating them (image-conscious poseurs!) or ignoring them entirely (since everyone knows that music isn't as good as it used to be)"

― tricky (disco stu), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:32 (twenty years ago)

Um, okay, fair enough. Hadn't read the whole thing yet before I posted. :)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:33 (twenty years ago)

but dude, that's his point

xpost

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:33 (twenty years ago)

and yes, yay Kelefa! anyone know what the book review by Sarah Vowell he mentions might be?

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:34 (twenty years ago)

Damn he even called out Jim Dero!!! Kelefa is my hero.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:39 (twenty years ago)

Oh, OK--it was this review of the Krist Novoselic book: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E6DF143BF934A25753C1A9629C8B63

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:43 (twenty years ago)

(FUN FACT: Sarah did some voice-work for The Incredibles -- she's "Violet Parr" in the film.)

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:47 (twenty years ago)

hey, did you know that the times just ran an article on the phenomenon of MEMES? always on the cutting edge, those crazy kids. they also had something on the recent popularity of punk fashion.

very good article, but it's weird reading it in 2004.

― results not typical (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:57 (twenty years ago)

I don't care how "cutting edge" it is, most critics still don't think this way. Its certainly still a relevent article.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 31 October 2004 02:00 (twenty years ago)

WHATEVER 1992

― LE CHUCK!™ (ex machina), Sunday, 31 October 2004 02:02 (twenty years ago)

WHO WANTS TO GO TO BURNING MAN?>/?????

― LE CHUCK!™ (ex machina), Sunday, 31 October 2004 02:02 (twenty years ago)

pop music crit or music crit in general has never been the times forte and after they redesigned the whole arts section i feared it would get worse, but the section's gotten a lot better. (it seems like they have given more space to music coverage at least) and the article is a perfect read for the times. imho etc etc

― tricky (disco stu), Sunday, 31 October 2004 02:06 (twenty years ago)

i wonder if my grandparents will ask me about "rockism" the next time I see them. they are the stereotypical times readers. ("next time i see them" = two weeks, though.)

― Ian John50n (orion), Sunday, 31 October 2004 02:09 (twenty years ago)

OMG TRICKY POSTED TO ILX

― LE CHUCK!™ (ex machina), Sunday, 31 October 2004 02:10 (twenty years ago)

It is a very thoughtful article, but I keep imagining some Times subscribers reading it and thinking "what the hell, am I the enemy now since I like Springsteen?" I know Kelefa isn't trying to demonize rockism so crudely, but I can't help think some fans of Bruce/Van/Strokes (all pictured in the article) reading this article might feel somewhat defensive because they might not be used to seeing the values they embody described as bad or evil in this particular way.

I do think he glosses over the entirely plausible, even attractive reasons for the rockist worldview, those both socio-political (autonomy rules) and metaphysical (death to simulacra); he largely makes rockism seem like a rather empty bias, nostalgia, old fogeyism. I mean, it often *is* that but it's not *just* that.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 02:46 (twenty years ago)

the one thing that stuck out as being a mistake when i read this through the first time is the reference to van morrison's "into the music." it's problematic because a lot of people do still listen to this album, and because denigrating a piece of music (even if he's only saying that it didn't stand the [rockist?!] test of time) sort of upsets the delicate, nearly-objective balance he achieved in the article as a whole.

otherwise a very good article, and i'm happy to see derogatis outed as an idiot in the NYT.

― amateur!!st, Sunday, 31 October 2004 03:12 (twenty years ago)

Yes. I forwarded it to my bandmates!!

― jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 31 October 2004 03:14 (twenty years ago)

I'm stunned to see this piece run in the Times ... really, really inside baseball swipe at criticism's laziest motherfuckers. Kinda like Kelefa saying, "My dick is bigger than yours!" to the DeRogatises of the world ...

God bless him for it, too. ;-)

― Chris O., Sunday, 31 October 2004 03:23 (twenty years ago)

but I can't help think some fans of Bruce/Van/Strokes reading this article might feel somewhat defensive
Isn't that the point? The Bruce/Van/Strokes purists can't appreciate the nuances of rockism unless they know what it is first. The article is a wake-up call to those people. I mean, he said that Xtina Aguilera was every bit as radical as punk -- if that doesn't make the Springsteen hockey dads keel over in their chairs, then nothing will.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 31 October 2004 03:28 (twenty years ago)

no, i think he proposed that as one possible argument to make that would be combating rockism on its own terms....

― amateur!!st, Sunday, 31 October 2004 03:37 (twenty years ago)

as has been discussed many times before on ILM, it is entirely possible to be a bruce/van morrison/strokes fan and not be a rockist. this will be entirely lost on those skimming this article, but that's more the fault of the format than the author -- kelefa wrote an article, not a treatise.

anyway, i thought that picking into the music as the counterpart of "rapper's delight" was totally OTMFM wr2 what kelefa was getting at. into the music is a perfect example of the sort of record that diehard rockists would hurl in the faces of anti-rockists/pro-popists/whatever -- as an example of an artist "in touch w/ his soul/muse," getting to the roots of what "rock is all about," the artist not caring for crass commercialism, or that favorite shibboleth "they're playing REAL INSTRUMENTS and van morrison is SINGING REAL SONGS in an AUTHENTIC VOICE" (another inspired mention would've been for 1979 was the height of giorgio moroder-esque synths in disco, as well as the beginning of synth-pop [kerefa could've dropped a mention of the man-machine or better still, gary numan's "cars" or the buggles' "video killed the radio star" to replace "rapper's delight"). lost in the shuffle, of course, is whether into the music is any GOOD to a particular listener.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 31 October 2004 03:41 (twenty years ago)

Shouldn't people just listen to all kinds of music and take everything on a case by case basis instead of assuming that "classic rock" is relevant and "pop" or "rap" is fluff?

― gunther, Sunday, 31 October 2004 03:55 (twenty years ago)

no, i think he proposed that as one possible argument to make that would be combating rockism on its own terms....
Yes, that's what was great about that sentence (re: Xtina). First, he provokes an OMGWTF outrage from the people who will blow a gasket at the sight of the words "punk", "radical" and "Xtina" appearing in the same sentence. Second, he notes that the very notion of gauging Xtina's career with respect to the radicality of punk implies that you're still using a rockist template as the basis for comparison. But until one understands the first point, I don't think one can appreciate the second.

A lot of people won't get past the "outrage" portion, whereas others (ILM'ers, for example) will appreciate the sentiments in the entire sentence. It works on both levels (which is true of the entire article, not just this one sentence).

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:06 (twenty years ago)

kelefa wrote an article, not a treatise.

eisbar is so a lawyer!

― cutty (mcutt), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:08 (twenty years ago)

KELEFA = FLIP-FLOPPER

― Ian John50n (orion), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:08 (twenty years ago)

I'm confused about something. In this article, Jim DeRogatis is taken to task for being a rockist. But didn't he just put out a book where he and other critics rip apart the albums that are part of the rockist canon?

― dingdong, Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:13 (twenty years ago)

But didn't he just put out a book where he and other critics rip apart the albums that are part of the rockist canon?

Yes, but most of the writers were criticizing those albums in rockist terms: the albums in question were often decried as being pretentious, phony, self-indulgent, overly mellow, fakely political, etc.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:26 (twenty years ago)

I see ... how should they have been criticized?

― dingdong, Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:30 (twenty years ago)

I mean, let's say you were going to rip apart a Yes album. You couldn't say that it is pretentious and self-indulgent without sounding rockist?

― dingdong, Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:32 (twenty years ago)

Though all that embodies several kinds of rockism that Kelefa doesn't touch upon. His focus is on the kinds of rockism that usually ends up loathing certains values in R&B and disco and New Romantic, not the one that loathes the values in art rock or singer-songwriter.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:34 (twenty years ago)

it's on the front page of the Arts & Leisure section, above the fold, with 'Rockism' the biggest word on the page

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:35 (twenty years ago)

somehow I'd wager that there's a difference between the rock canon and the rockist canon, though I'm having a hard time pinpointing what it is at the mo.

― Matos W.K. (M Matos), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:36 (twenty years ago)

rockism = a reaction to prog-rock. which is kinda what mr. daddino was getting at.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:36 (twenty years ago)

Let's say that you decided to say that despite the commonly accepted belief that Led Zeppelin's first album is amazing, you think it sucks and is overrated and all of that. How would you go about ripping it apart without sounding rockist?

― dingdong, Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:38 (twenty years ago)

Or, I should say, by using rockist terms, as Michael Daddino said.

― dingdong, Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:39 (twenty years ago)

I mean, let's say you were going to rip apart a Yes album. You couldn't say that it is pretentious and self-indulgent without sounding rockist?

I'm having trouble putting this in words that satisfy me, but I think you can say it without sounding rockist. You could say that "Yes attempted to incoporate highfalutin ideas into their music but ended up sounded really pretentious and self-indulgent, whereas acts with kinda sorta similar aspirations like Henry Cow or Harmonia or Eno or Gong or Zappa actually achieved what Yes tried to without sounding pretentious and self-indulgent."

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:45 (twenty years ago)

Got it. I think. So it's not rockist if you compare something to its contemporaries instead of what came before? I'm just trying to get a handle on this whole rockist thing!

― dingdong, Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:47 (twenty years ago)

to side-step the question: it's not about ripping led zep 1 on non-rockist terms, it's about the rockist mindset obfuscating enjoyment of non-rockist music. non-rockist music being a term that is nebulous as hell.

xposts

― tricky (disco stu), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:49 (twenty years ago)

"Pretentious" in rockist usage usually means "having certain intellectual aims that are TOTALLY FOREIGN and a betrayal, even, to the idea of rock." If it's used in the sense of "having certain intellectual aims that the person can't follow through on" -- you're not objecting to the intellectualization of rock, just the sloppy and stupid instances of it.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:51 (twenty years ago)

or cut to the chase: RICK WAKEMAN KILLED YES DEAD.

(more intelligently: focus on what it is about the music that makes it pretentious. ergo the rick wakeman crack -- was it really necessary, even for a band like yes that was trying to get highfalutin', to have an assclown showing off on his synths and thereby detracting from what they were trying to do?)

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 31 October 2004 04:51 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 506 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Well, it's true that a lot of punk records were rather carefully produced, with lots of overdubs and stuff. But that was against punk's ideology, and was rather hidden. The ideology of punk was that you couldn't play and it didn't matter because it was all about getting the message across. Bands would boast about how little they spent in the studio, just like the zines would try to look as crappy as possible. That meant they had integrity, they were authentic. New Wave re-introduced production. Compare Buzzcocks with Magazine, or compare Wire on 'Pink Flag' with Wire on '154'. Punk returned to production when it evolved into New Wave.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 15 November 2004 21:27 (twenty years ago)

three months pass...

MTV fails to get to grips with the issue shocker.

― JoB (JoB), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:34 (twenty years ago)

Is everyone as tired as I am of the use of the phrase "hate on" rather than simply the word "hate"?

― Rick Massimo (Rick Massimo), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:48 (twenty years ago)

I must find this person. And hunt and slay.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:51 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, that was about as off the money as it gets.

Incidentally, there's nothing more dud than MTV pop-punk/rap-metal bands doing *ironic* covers of non-rock pop songs. It feels like the baseball team making fun of the football team for being jocks or something.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:54 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps there's a weird reflexive jealousy. (I don't see many of the pop acts on MTV covering the punk/metal stuff.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:55 (twenty years ago)

True dat.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

"true outcasts"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

I actually had an argument about a week ago with the editor of a local music monthly, who told me that she realized "Toxic" was a great (i.e., "well-written") song after the Local H cover, but she could never give props to the original version because Britney herself is a "talentless commodity."

"If the songwriter's name is on the cover, if it says 'Toxic' by Laura Perry [sic] or whatever, then that's a different story. But it says Britney Spears on the cover, so I have to review Britney Spears for who she is: someone who's not a good singer and who doesn't write her own songs."

Later in the conversation, I maligned DeRogatis, to which she replied, "Oh you know he's a very good friend of mine." OF COURSE.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:08 (twenty years ago)

DeRo has friends?

(The real problem here is that "Toxic," while not bad, is not great either, so the idea of Local H covering it just continues the meh.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:10 (twenty years ago)

"Now if Coldplay would just cover Lindsay Lohan, we could all have a version of "Rumors" to be proud of."

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:11 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, THAT line I almost quoted here myself. Good freaking god.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:11 (twenty years ago)

I actually like both versions of "Toxic"!

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:11 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I like them both about the same. I'm not gaga over either, but I think they're both pretty good, and probably represent some of the best work of each artist.

http://www.localh.com/toxic.html

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:13 (twenty years ago)

"Toxic" was my favorite single of 2004, but I'd already put it on my best-of mix for 2003 (I first heard it in December), so on my best-of mix for 2004 I just put on the Local H version.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:17 (twenty years ago)

"But it says Britney Spears on the cover, so I have to review Britney Spears for who she is: someone who's not a good singer and who doesn't write her own songs."

Need I point out the irony of this statement in a discussion of a COVER SONG?

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:18 (twenty years ago)

There were a lot of things I wanted to say but was too dumbstruck to actually say them.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

Now if Coldplay would just cover Lindsay Lohan, we could all have a version of "Rumors" to be proud of.

― Leon the Fatboy in NYC (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:56 (twenty years ago)

Now if Coldplay would just cover Lindsay Lohan, we could all have a version of "Rumors" to be proud of.

DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE

― Leon the Fatboy in NYC (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:56 (twenty years ago)

Um, I actually have absolutely no problem with any part of that MTV article. It's basically true and the writer qualifies everything very well. What exactly is wrong with it?

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:59 (twenty years ago)

but I think they're both pretty good, and probably represent some of the best work of each artist.

ign'nt muthfucker don't know his local h! Get one Pack Up The Cats.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:04 (twenty years ago)

Well, mainly I'd say it's the article's underlying assumption that a pop star's version of a song can't possibly do justice to it, and that a rock band's cover almost inevitably brings out the song's true goodness.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

the irony is that MTV hasn't given a shit about local h for YEARS!

(brit's version is better, btw - I love both, though)

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:11 (twenty years ago)

I see hints of that and the "guilty pleasure" thing is problematic, but overall I'd say it's a positive thing to point out the inherent goodness in a well written pop song, regardless of who performs it.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

...it's acceptable for the guy in the Franz Ferdinand T-shirt to rock it in his iPod.

― f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:15 (twenty years ago)

(wierd, stuff keeps disappearing on me) ^^^strictly speaking this isn't true.

i hope to christ he had to research that list of rock bands who have covered pop tunes. no one should actually just know that shit.

― f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

Isn't it easier to do that without such loaded qualifications, though?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

(Responding to Spencer there.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:16 (twenty years ago)

Spencer, right, but I'd prefer it if the argument didn't have the spin of "Only now that a rock band has covered the song is its goodness apparent."

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 18:17 (twenty years ago)

Spencer, what part of this isn't risible? The smug, I'm-better-than-those-plebes tone? The statement (not implication, not insinuation) that you can't figure out "Toxic" is great without a rock band doing it? (= there's nothing to like in Britney's version, which is total fucking bullshit.) I can't even finish the damn thing, it's so retarded.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 20:47 (twenty years ago)

There are problems with it - I retract my unqualified positive review, but it actually has a lot of good lines: "whether it's got rock-star attitude or the sonic pop bling of the original." etc. I think if it was written for something other than MTV.com, it would be an all out assault on pop, but as it stands, there's a positive tone to the reviews of the originals as well.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

I actually pretty much disagree with the whole "a good song will reveal itself" theory. Pop music is more about execution than composition surely, although yeah composition is a big part too. That the a rock version of Britney's song could be as good as the original (allegedly - I haven't heard it) would strike me more as a coincidence than a revelation of the song's innate qualities. Otherwise the awfulness of Travis doing "Baby One More Time" would have to indicate some inherent problem within the original of that song, when in fact the problem is entirely Travis.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

When people say a rock band has "revealed the good songwriting" in a pop tune with their semi-ironic cover, they usually just mean "some guys with guitars have surprised me by demonstrating that this song has conventional chord changes and hummable melodies, which I didn't notice before because I'm either dumb, categorically dogmatic, or overly distracted by the beat."

― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 22:51 (twenty years ago)

Alternately they just mean "my concept of a 'song' is a series of guitar chords with someone singing in a serious-type tone of voice, and it has not yet occurred to me that nearly every pop recording can be translated in this fashion."

― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 22:52 (twenty years ago)

Pop music is more about execution than composition surely, although yeah composition is a big part too.

The degree depends on the song/track. For example, in Tori Alamaze's "Don't Cha", the chorus, with it's chord progression and vocal hook, could be turned into a successful rock song, however, the success of the intro and verses rely on a lot of very production specific mood and texture (timbre) in the rhythm track and the eerie organ.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 23:21 (twenty years ago)

i've been trying to come up with a joke about this list of bands for hours and i can't come up with anything, the list is the purest form of comedy, after all.

Limbeck
Dynamite Boy
New Found Glory
Chronic Overboogie
Stretch Arm Strong
Further Seems Forever
The Starting Line

― f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 23:28 (twenty years ago)

i mean, just look at that. jesus wept.

― f--gg (gcannon), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 23:28 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I discovered the greatness of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" when I heard the Weird Al version.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 01:51 (twenty years ago)

Kidding, sort of, but it did confirm the strength of the song itself.

― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Wednesday, 23 February 2005 01:52 (twenty years ago)

nine years pass...

I was with him up until "Christina Aguilera is every bit as radical as 70s punk."

― Mr. Snrub, Tuesday, 3 June 2014 21:22 (eleven years ago)

does Sanneh write about music anymore? a quick glance at his recent New Yorker stuff shows politics, sports, books, practically anything but music.

― take a load off, Whiney, and and aaaand you put the load right on me (some dude), Tuesday, 3 June 2014 22:34 (eleven years ago)

xp that xtina album cycle did have some legitimate challenging (in the good way) moments

― dyl, Tuesday, 3 June 2014 23:28 (eleven years ago)

Knowing how hard it is for writers who start out in music to make a living from not writing about music, I'm not surprised Kelefa's grabbing the opportunity. It's not like there aren't other people covering music at the New Yorker. I've always wondered why SFJ doesn't do longform though.

― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 09:37 (eleven years ago)

did mr snrub take a decade to read the piece or

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 12:21 (eleven years ago)

― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Wednesday, June 4, 2014 5:37 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah it's not shocking, especially since Sanneh always seemed like he had interests outside music and an ability to write about other things. good for him, tbh. it was just weird to realize that a music critic who's had a lengthy ILM thread dedicated to him has quietly moved on to other subjects.

― some dude, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 12:37 (eleven years ago)

In 2008 when he joined the New Yorker, I thought he made it clear he was gonna write about non-music subjects

― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 15:42 (eleven years ago)

My hunch is that all music writers have interests outside music and the vast majority have the ability to write about them but there aren't many publications like the New Yorker that avoid pigeonholing and say "Hey if you can write well about x maybe you can write well about y and z." Most titles say "You're the x guy. Write about x until you die."

― What is wrong with songs? Absolutely nothing. Songs are great. (DL), Wednesday, 4 June 2014 16:33 (eleven years ago)

I was just more surprised he left the New York Times to go to the New Yorker. Writer John Leland who wrote great music pieces for Spin way back in the '80s, moved to the NY Times long ago where he has mostly written non-Music stuff. So it can be done.

― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 4 June 2014 17:06 (eleven years ago)

did mr snrub take a decade to read the piece or

― lex pretend, Wednesday, June 4, 2014 12:21 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm a little slow.

― Mr. Snrub, Saturday, 7 June 2014 19:08 (eleven years ago)

this is when I was working at Tower (Records), with coworkers who would make anyone anti-rockist 4 life.

― Paul, Monday, 9 June 2014 21:26 (eleven years ago)

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