I humbly submit...

What I wrote on my site: The idiotic year-end music roundup by Joey Sweeney, whose writing I used to like before he turned into the pompous half-wit responsible for this...assemblage, I guess you'd call it. It reminds me most of that guy from Girls Against Boys who wrote an editorial for The Nation disparaging the boy-band craze as a plot against real musicians--like, you know, Girls Against Boys. The trouble with Sweeney (as opposed The Trouble With Sweeney, the indie- rock band the author is in, i.e. the main reason, I’d guess, that he's so huffing-puffing fed up with all this mainstream crap in the first place) is that he’s all attitude and no substance--a polite way of saying that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. I mean, the first graf alone: yikes! A ’90s retro-swing club has had to “pollute its identity” with “nu-soul, alt-rock and, most embarrassingly, bad house music on the weekends.” Given what he later says about Daft Punk and Basement Jaxx, this guy wouldn’t know good house if one fell on him. (Given that he’s apparently wringing his hands over the demise of a club that opened up to capitalize on one of the shallowest fads of the last decade, that’s not too surprising.) He then goes onto castigate hipsters by attempting to outhip them (“Me and my friends--a writer from Nylon, another guy from Magnet, a producer from NPR's Fresh Air”--well, how much cooler you are than those silly groupies in the VIP room is pretty obvious by now, for shame we might think otherwise), demonstrates a limited short-term memory and/or grasp of backstage scenes of the non-indie- pop variety (“Being children of the '90s…none of us have ever seen anything quite like [the women lining up to make out with the Strokes]”--guess this guy missed Oasis completely and never saw the Jay-Z tour documentary, eh?), and avers his love of the horrific Weezer (it’s too bad their new album sucked, he says, because their music is so honest--and Daft Punk’s isn’t, cough cough gag gag, at least to this particular “disenchanted 14-year-old of the world”). It gets better after that, but not by much.

your thoughts?

Afraid I agree. Couldn't get past the first page.

Note to writers: you can be clueless, ignorant, self-aggrandizing, pretentious, dishonest, whatever, any and all of the above. It's OK. But you cannot be so in such a boring manner!

Just had to reiterate how much I agreed with M. Matos here, Sweeney's essay is truly lame. However, are you sure the guy who did the 'Nation' piece was from Girls vs. Boys? I thought he was from Soul Coughing, though I could be mistaken.

Blimey. Has this guy just lived through the same year I have? The article is so hysterically bad and wrongheaded it's near to self- parody. And I don't think it does pick up after the ridiculous introduction, his picks of the year being as wretched as his intro. Nod to classicism in choosing Bob Dylan, nod to some idea of urban cutting edge in choosing Missy but hedging his bets by dissing her for appearing in the Bubba Sparxxx video. Obligatory mention of last years rubbish big thing, ie Badly Drawn Boy. Bruce worship. Bloody Wilco. 'Elliott Smith's first few acoustic albums one of the defining artistic statements of '90s' !? Ryan cockfarming Adams. Nu-soul was great because it had 'low, low pretence'. Eh? Until it was ruined by histrionic vocalising. EH? Authenticity bore to thee max elsewhere as well: Weezer's Hash Pipe praised for being brutally honest and real rather than being slammed for being cliched angsty altrock. Irritation at radio banning of records post 11/9 because it's those records that mean it maaaaan are being banned NOT merely because stuff being banned might be a bad thing in general. GRRRRRR. And the bit about the flaccid genre of dance music is just priceless. His conflation of techno, dance and electronic music leading to the weird implication that Stereolab are techno. Rooty being written off as flop as though the only measure of a records success is how much it sells. Daft Punk dismissed as being so 1998 despite the author grudgingly admitting their album was OK. Yes mate, whatever.

Sorry for reiterating many of Michaelangelo's points. Sweeney's article made me so angry I just rattled that off without reading his post properly first.

In addition to the points y'all have already made, might I also suggest that the reason Mr. Sweeney has "girl problems" that he gripes of is because he is a vaguely sexist twit? Despite his "looky I'm a feminist" posturings in the Missy mini-review, he comes off as so smugly patronising towards all the "girls" he reviews.

Can't offer much more than complete agreement with what has been said above.

what i wrote in my own blog (and in an actual email to sweeny, possibly the cruelest, tersest email i've ever sent another writer, and on xmas day no less: Subj: yr salon year in review
Date: 12/25/01 8:02:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: dubplatestyle@hotmail.com
To: jsweeney@philadelphiaweekly.com
you sir, are an idiot. and i fear to live in yr cold and colorless world where this wasn't the best year for music in recent memory. happy holidays, chump. (if mssr. sweeney does respond, there will be a second missive detailing the evil that cranks with access to a large, impressionable, non-music sensetive readership do with their ridiculous year end reviews. quit projecting yr own lame depression and disillusionment onto pop culture as a whole you nimrods!) michaelangelo said everything much more eloquently than that, but yes, worst piece of the year. except for possibly here . (the man actually makes the strokes-as-possible-nirvana hopeful comparison with a straight face!

christ, fuckin html! let's try that agin:

what i wrote in my own blog (and in an actual email to sweeny, possibly the cruelest, tersest email i've ever sent another writer, and on xmas day no less:

Subj: yr salon year in review

Date: 12/25/01 8:02:59 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: dubplatestyle@hotmail.com

To: jsweeney@philadelphiaweekly.com

you sir, are an idiot.

and i fear to live in yr cold and colorless world where this wasn't the best year for music in recent memory.

happy holidays, chump.

(if mssr. sweeney does respond, there will be a second missive detailing the evil that cranks with access to a large, impressionable, non-music sensetive readership do with their ridiculous year end reviews. quit projecting yr own lame depression and disillusionment onto pop culture as a whole you nimrods!)

********************************************

michaelangelo said everything much more eloquently than that, but yes, worst piece of the year. except for possibly here . (the man actually makes the strokes-as-possible-nirvana hopeful comparison with a straight face!

btw, his response was: "okay, right, thanks for taking the time."

Ok, usually whenever someone posts something with the phrase "best...ever," or "worst...ever." I try to play devil's advocate. But this time....Matos is absolutely correct. That essay is pure fucking evil. Horrible. Horrible. HORRIBLE.

Okay, wait a minute...

For seven years now -- after the last post-Nirvana indie boom that gave us such now-negligible names as John Spencer and Superchunk and, oh man, do you remember Ben Lee?

Jon Spencer can thank Nirvana for the Blues Explosion's old deal with Matador? The Blues Explosion's video rotation on MTV is a result of Nirvana? That deal that Superchunk made with the devil that is Merge can be traced to Nirvana? (Oh whoops, Superchunk run Merge. Still, dude!)

I can't believe I'm defending (???) these groups. But what the hell did any of them have to do with Nirvana? I would have totally flown past that statement if Silverchair, Sponge, and Candlebox would have been mentioned instead of people who had been on their own little paths (ie not grunge) before Nirvana got big.

And then there's the part about the Now compilations. Duh... just as there will always be HC music geeks, there will always be people who don't take music as seriously as we do. Who knew? Can you believe there are people who don't watch any NFL during the season but they do watch the Super Bowl? Sheesh! Can you believe there are people who only read two books during a given year? Can you believe most of the people on the planet buy less than 20 records a year??? Boy, the more things are changing, the more things are staying exactly the same.

I'd write more, but I'm still trying to come up with a winner for my "Best Record Depicting a Furry Animal Munching on a Leaf on the Cover" award. Uh...

Thing I learned from this article: Maximilian Hecker is not "Hecker." Hecker is Florian Hecker.

And obviously Maximilian Hecker has nothing to do with Max Hecker, who the AMG tells me played the recorder on a Rainbow album.

Truly horrible, and exactly what I'd expect from Salon. How about a thread on why some reasonable people insist on calling Salon "well written" or "provocative"? There was a time when there were decent columnists (Harry Shearer, Cintra Wilson, Christopher Hitchens, Dave Eggers, Sarah Vowell, Camille Paglia), but now there's pretty much nothing. Why doesn't anybody call them on it? It's trite, vapid, poorly written, and self-congratulatory in the worst sub-NPR/Frisco manner possible. Even the hookers' diaries are boring.

Dan, you are right on the money. Salon used to have some good writers, now they are truly a useless piece of garbage. The writing quality is almost uniformly poor (ok, maybe it's better than Pitchfork), and this latest article is a perfect example.

Another annoyance in the first graph: "as the Beastie Boys once said, 'Packed like sardines in a tin can'." Why name-check the Beasties when using a cliche like that? Surely it has been used a million times before. Ugh, I can't go on.

Why name-check the Beasties when using a cliche like that?

'Cause it refers to a time when music was better.

Jon Spencer can thank Nirvana for the Blues Explosion's old deal with Matador? The Blues Explosion's video rotation on MTV is a result of Nirvana? Should he have said Beck and Mike D.? (Although Russel Simins was pals with Kurt). Plus, the JSBX had two albums released in participation with Capitol, after Matador was partially bought by them, under the stewardship of the guy that signed Nirvana. Boss Hog had an LP on DGC.

That deal that Superchunk made with the devil that is Merge can be traced to Nirvana? Superchunk (and Chapel Hill) were hyped like crazy as one of the next big things after Nirvana (and Seattle) exploded, and major labels were waiting for Superchunk's contract with Matador to sign them. The fact that they eventually decided to put out their own albums doesn't take away from the fact that they got a lot of press post-Nirvana from the likes of Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone.

Does anybody else think writing to someone stating they are an idiot, especially cuz they didn't see the world of pop music during a calendar year the same way as each other, is kinda juvenile (or at least NME letter pages kinda stuff)?

That article is shit. He's right about Ryan Adams though, he just forgot to mention the fact that 90 percent of people who hate him are complete countryphobes.

I guess I have a selective memory regarding Superchunk. I remember some coverage in Spin, but that's about it.

I don't think Spencer's relationship with Capitol had that much of an effect on his career or his exposure. (And certainly it had less of an effect on the industry than a Sponge or a Candlebox.) His records were in a few more Sam Goodys, but wasn't that where he was headed anyway? Feel free to correct me.

The way it was phrased made it read like Nirvana somehow spawned the existence of those people. But I suppose it could all be blamed on Gary Gersh.

Does anybody else think writing to someone stating they are an idiot, especially cuz they didn't see the world of pop music during a calendar year the same way as each other, is kinda juvenile (or at least NME letter pages kinda stuff)?

probably.

if anyone had done that.

all ha ha funny aside...sweeney isn't just "some" guy; he's writing for a still inexplicably revered online magazine with (i would assume without seeing their hitcount) a wide readership. he's also a contributing editor to the philadelphia weekly, so perhaps you guys aren't quite as biased because you haven't been subjected to his cloying, self-righteous, indie-boy saddo drivel for the better part of three or four years now. sweeney is essentially a bad critic because he presupposes that his own anhedonia towards pop, dance, most hiphop and r&b, experimental electronica, jazz (and christ knows what else wasn't a Nth generation flying nun bootleg someone cd-r'd for him this year) means that *no one* could find enjoyment in them, that because his own particular zeitgeist wasn't being fufilled we have fallen into a the plastic black-(ass)hole of anti-culture. all music crits do this to one extent or another; lester bangs spent the better part of his career crowing and capitalizing on the notion that the early 70s were a black hole for music. but this philly int'l comp i just bought sez otherwise. ditto the neu! reissues, onette's "dancing in yr head," and plenty of jamaican music (just to name some things i bought this year.) sweeney's snotty and smarmy and irony-laden (oh, that's so over, so '94) without having the requisite smarts, background knowledge, or most importantly WRITING SKILLZ. as has been amply demonstrated here his logic is faulty, his reasoning questionable, his "thesis" nonexistent, and his styling annoying as all hell. which is a damn sight different than him disagreeing with me about 2001.

er I still kind of have a problem with people making fun of his opinions as opposed to his lack of writing skills. He talks some shite re Daft Punk, and kind of re Rooty, but in fairness, as much as I like Rooty, I was still really disappointed by it. it's not as good as Remedy.

Ronan would you say it's fair to criticise the way he explains his dislike for some music? "Rooty" = non-seller = bad? What a strange argument for a pop-hater to make. Although citing Stereolab's album as an example of dance music's decline is much stranger, I'll admit.

The worst quote:

"In fact, from the moment Bruce Springsteen stepped out into a silent, lonely spotlight to play "My City of Ruins," a moment of sheer intellectual whiplash went through almost everybody within viewing range: This was what music could do. This was how music could move and heal and embolden the tattered soul."

Is there some reason why the majority of music writers can't write about Bruce Springsteen without turning into pop St. Augustines? This kind of hyperbole isn't just bad writing ("intellectual whiplash"?), it's embarrassing. Yes, Springsteen's performance was heartfelt and sincere (as usual), but writers like Sweeney make me wonder if there wasn't something fake about it. No one's THAT good.

Also, the "music moves/heals/empowers/emboldens/smooths the soul" bit is possibly the most overused, smarmy, irritating cliche used by any music writer, ever.

I still kind of have a problem with people making fun of his opinions as opposed to his lack of writing skills. He talks some shite re Daft Punk, and kind of re Rooty, but in fairness, as much as I like Rooty, I was still really disappointed by it.

But if you were to come up with a smartly reasoned, well-written article about why you don't like Rooty, we wouldn't make fun of you. (I wouldn't, anyway, and Rooty is my favorite album of 2001 by some distance.) Sweeney's tastes are being made fun of because they seem so reflexive, and because he comes across as such a sheltered wet that he wouldn't be able to tell a good Basement Jaxx record from a bad one if his life depended on it. I might make fun of him for liking Weezer, but I know plenty of smart people who like Weezer and I don't make fun of them for it, because they're smart enough to be articulate why they do or don't like something based on something other than being an evident complete fanboy/girl for it. More than anything, I'm criticizing the method behind the opinions, using the opinions themselves as a stand-in--and I'll try not to do it in the future.

the "music moves/heals/empowers/emboldens/smooths the soul" bit is possibly the most overused, smarmy, irritating cliche used by any music writer, ever

You know, it's not that I mind that cliche so much, because even if it's grossly overstated in an undergraduate-poetry-major sort of way, it's largely true. What's weird is that it's used as proxy for an unmade, unsupported argument that artist X actually does all that and artist Y doesn't, as if it's self-evident that whatever moves the writer is actually moving and everything else is not. Not to mention that that's not all music can do, and not necessarily even the most important thing music can do; sure it can be just as worthwhile for great music to provide a juvenile laugh or an aesthetic/intellectual thrill. I tend not to like arguments that say an entire art form should have one and only one goal, because they inevitably lead across to the speaker's assumption that only certain artists are doing that properly.

"Get Me Off" is remarkably sincere.

Jess: just read that Michael Goldberg piece you linked above, and yr right--it's a tough call. I mean, Sweeney's is really poorly written but at least it's in sentences that are semi-legible. MG seems to be semiliterate. Endlessly quotable in Bizarro World; faves include:

"Barely Legal" is a truly classic track, the kinda song that, when you hear it, makes you feel like life is really worth living to the hilt. And then some. It's the full stop between "hilt" and "And" that really makes this one.

"Everything Hits At Once," the opening track, is simply the best. The best what?

Whether singing about "Glad Girls" or a scientist who fails at delivering a love elixir, [Robert] Pollard sounds like the fate of the world depends on his communiqués reaching us. And, in fact, it does. Alert the Taliban!

Every song kicks it, and the cameos by Tom Waits, PJ Harvey and others are all dope (not throwaways, as some might think). From a Sparklehorse review!

The melancholy of "Cup of Coffee," a breakup ballad, will serve as my personal soundtrack for the many novels of Haruki Murakami that I read and loved this year. As Captain Beefheart once put it, the past sure is tense. Or the present. Or something.

Perhaps this pop (as in Beatles, not Britney) singer/songwriter's best album yet. Take THAT, Jess/Tom/Fred/others!

ahhh...dirt-easy, cheap, and fun.

I actually read the Michael Goldberg overview first and was all ready to do a song and dance about how unbeatably awful it was until I came across Mr. Matos' blog link to Joey's - but I like the way the two seem to cover all the worst aspects of music writing between them. Both have the unsubstantiated statements, reflexive judgments and plain bad calls, but Goldberg matches Sweeney's lazy disinterest and tired-hack approach with a brand of inarticulate but enthusiastic posturing that's worthy of my first usenet posts - when I was thirteen.

christ, we're a buncha mean lil pricks aren't we?

i don't think sweeney is necessarily as bad a writer as this piece might lead us to believe; i've probably had more experience with his writing than anyone around ilx (except maura...i asked her to sucker punch him for me if she saw him...now that's childish!) sure, his ideas and themes (sorry ronan) always rubbed me the wrong way, even at the height of my own indie boy sad saddo-ness. but they were never as sloppy in execution as this. as michaelangelo hints above in response to ronan, that's all the problem really is: poor writing. i know for a fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this great land of mine who hate house music (or dance music in general, or hiphop for that matter.) but i don't take them seriously because their kneejerk responses are pure classic-rock radio dj. sweeney (and goldberg) - in their own indie boy ways - are not essentially different than the south philly mooks cruising down broad st. with wmmr's double shot tuesdays of the zep blasting out the windows. so why should a "literate journal of the arts" want to publish discourse that isn't much above the level of a bored saturday night beer run? (christ, i probably had conversations about the decline and fall of western civ as it relates to indie labels vs. "pop tripe"...when i was 16!) and i'd probably enjoy the mook- essay more. at least it wouldn't be so self-aware.

Why oh why did he have to bring Murakami into that?

(Serious answer: he thinks name-dropping Murakami gives him high-art lit cred. This backfires insofar as Murakami, while amazing, does not provide high-art lit cred. Using Murakami for high-art lit cred is like using Modest Mouse for obscurist music cred -- it has entirely the opposite effect.)

He should have name checked writer Jesse Bernstein. Then, he would have some cred. ha!

I don't think Goldberg's best of was quite so bad as Sweeney's, but it still made me inwardly cringe and say "argh!". It was so cliche- ridden. The fact that he namechecked some stuff I really liked this year, like Low and the Liliput reissue, just made it worse.

I am currently saving myself the bother and not reading either of the articles. See, I have just had an excellent breakfast here in SF, and do not wish to chuck it up. ;

You've already read ile today, so you're chances of chucking it are pretty high anyhow.

Something tells me Ned'll be making a stop at Amoeba.

goldberg's quite the wanker, eh?

Yeah you're both right, he did express his opinions badly. Perhaps here is not the place but the people who are slating the guy (justifiably) were not pointing out flaws in his reasoning but in his opinions. Maybe I'm being unfair, I mean I'd normally be very quick to slate something I thought was crap, but for some reason I'm being contrary and defending the guy. er, even though I agree it's a piece of shit.

thing that bugs most about Goldberg (besides he's a highly-paid media professional who writes like a starstruck, inarticulate 9-year-old) is that he's been doing this for a LONG TIME; he used to work at Rolling Stone, and while that hardly qualifies him as a Great Writer, it should have at least instilled some professionalism into what he does. the sentences parsed (OK, just made fun of) above are the kind of drivel that gets your clips looked at by real editors and tossed into the wastebasket posthaste. believe me, I've written poor stuff and had the same thing happen; I just never fucking did so so blatantly (knock wood).

the people who are slating the guy (justifiably) were not pointing out flaws in his reasoning but in his opinions.

You mean that if he had expressed opinions that were more popular 'round these parts, no one would've had much of a problem with his article, even if it had been written just as badly? Perish the thought!

Not that I'm innocent of that, myself -- albeit in reverse: I found myself responding somewhat favorably to the article, without particular regard for how well or badly it was written, as I think, based on what I've heard so far, 2001 was mostly a crap year for music. With one or two exceptions, I can't think of any band I like who put out an album in 2001 that wasn't weaker than most or all of their earlier albums. And I can't think of a single single that's particularly engaged me at all. And most of the "classic albums of 2001" that I've heard -- Endless Summer, A Chance to Cut..., and so forth -- do little for me. (It has been a decent year for reissues, though.)

But perhaps I too am suffering from "anhedonia".

Another Goldberg goodie, on Bob Dylan: "The songs are good and the lyrics great. Too bad he sings like he's got the flu, instead of like it's 1966 and he's about to record Highway 61 Revisited."

Which was released in 1965.

Girls Against Boys have nice pants. Or nice trousers, as you like.
! Anyway, yes, it was wretched crap, that essay. First thing: how cool can you be if you even NOTICE what a retro-swing club was doing EVER? & if he's so upset about the Strokes thing, again, why go? Why write about it once you've been there? Furthermore those women prob. have the right idea, while the poor rock crit guys were dumb enough to go to the show for the tunes.
He gets Daft Punk all wrong, I think - there's not a second layer of irony or self- consciousness to what they do - or perhaps my willingness to hear Discovery for what it is & not project a second layer of wink- wink affectations on top is why I love it so much. Isn't it ironic when French people who like disco put in those funny French disco fills, just for irony's sake? Uh...whatever.
I agree with the comment about this guy's not-so-well-hidden sexism, too, throwing around words like 'skanky' and 'trashy' without a second thought & my big pet peeve, tendency of rock critics to think female musicians are interchangeable - there's only so many female personas to go around, & if Pink is slightly shifting hers, she must be Gwen! And if Gwen changes her hair & sings on a hip-hop track, she must be Pink! And if he likes a couple of singles by India Arie & Sunshine Anderson, well, all those black women are obviously exactly the same so if Alicia Keys isn't any good (b/c she resembles Mariah Carey HOW?..), none of 'em are - time to go back to sleep, I guess.
Plus... If all it takes is some tossed-off Missy Elliott rap in a commercial to cause you to speculate on all feminist theory being somehow damaged, well.. that's just sad.

I wonder why Salon couldn't hire some of the insightful and interesting people on this board to do the occasional piece, maybe even the year-end wrap-up.

― daria gray, Thursday, 27 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Something tells me Ned'll be making a stop at Amoeba.

Already did that yesterday. I can't begin to say how pleased I was to find three of the Pet Shop Boys reissues *used*. Thank god for crack addicts.

Nicole and Maria and others have already commented excellently on the extremely creepy sexual fixation of the original article. What the flying fuck?

I wouldn't fret over Sweeny too much, Michaelangelo -- ALL music sucks. Okay, 92.00466% of it is utterly without merit, and those practitioners with at least a fragment of a scintilla of a clue are wise to remain well below radar. I abhor EVERYONE's best lists, and I'd rather that we forgave 2001 and moved ahead to 2044... I'm terribly picky.

Sincerely,

Laura N.

I'm terribly picky.

we've gathered.

repeatedly.