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.

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.