Pitchfork gets bratty with the Slow Dazzle

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I don't know who Mark Hogan is, but he's a fucking brat. Look what he wrote about the Slow Dazzle, a really cool side project of the dominant Mendoza Line.

Regardless of what this chump says, The Mendoza Line have talent to burn. Just ask Greil Marcus.

"All of which brings us to that final question: What, other than aging newspapermen's personal biases (now too easily derided as "rockism") made certain alt-country more affecting than most mainstream country-pop? I submit, exactly what literary critic Martin Amis has tirelessly championed in his own chosen purview: talent. You can become rich without talent, famous without talent, but you can't become talented without talent, Amis writes. So we do away with talent: The author of Hannibal is hailed as Pulitzer-worthy; the likes of Shania receive unironic accolades (patience, Brooks & Dunn).

Alas, it is in this nebulous quality-- talent-- that Slow Dazzle's efforts here ultimately prove deficient. A halting, unexceptional Leonard Cohen cover stands leagues above anything else on the disc. There's no shame in a well-executed cover, but Slow Dazzle's "Anthem" is no match for Johnny Cash's "Bird on a Wire", the suddenly unfashionable Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah", or-- if we may expand beyond Cohen-- Uncle Tupelo's "No Depression".

-Marc Hogan, July 6, 2005

― kornrulez6969 (TCBeing), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 18:10 (twenty years ago)

All of which brings us to that final question: What, other than aging newspapermen's personal biases (now too easily derided as "rockism") made certain alt-country more affecting than most mainstream country-pop?

pitchfork in sudden adoption of two-year-old Village Voice critical positions non-shockah

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

If it makes you feel any better, when I first read the review this morning, he claimed that the name came from the title of a John Cage record. I e-mailed them (although I'm sure I wasn't the only one) about their mistake, but it's been changed already.

― Jonathan Merritt, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:43 (twenty years ago)

to be fair, Banana, they're also using people who have been writing for the Voice for two years too. They've got the right to the stances!

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

"literary critic martin amis"?

that review may be the most pompous thing i have ever read on the internet

and I say that as someone who has read quite a lot of marcello carlin

― Lord Darlington, Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

"pitchfork in sudden adoption of two-year-old Village Voice critical positions non-shockah"

Idiots in failing basic reading comprehension shockah.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:49 (twenty years ago)

"the dominant Mendoza Line"? do they tie you up in bed or something?

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:53 (twenty years ago)

haha dammit Alex why did you read the whole paragraph? Just to show was up? Well congratulations.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

gah, i mean show us up.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

and I'm grateful you did. That's one hell of a dumbass paragraph.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

i could never see the appeal of the mendoza line.

however, i will relinquish myself from complete negativity on this thread for an interesting connection: tim bracy of the band is the brother of one of the future of music coalition's founders.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

(xpost)Haha I am no smarter for reading it all, believe me.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

the suddenly unfashionable Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah"

Huh? That song is now more popular than ever now thanks to the OC. If anybody would be offended by the song now that it has an unfashionable fanbase I would guess it would be Pitchfork, ironically.

― Cunga (Cunga), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

can we please stop acting as if Pitchfork is one person? it's getting really old.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

Talent!

http://www.lifestyleslive.com/Images/Ed_Photo.jpg

x-post dude Pitchfork loves the O.C., check yesterday's 'tracks.'

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

Aw, matos, it's fun! Don't hate fun.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

Matt Hogan doesn't watch the OC though. He watches more talented FOX shows like Family Guy and Hell's Kitchen.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

true, in a way, I suppose. (xpost: Alex, much better!)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

Matt and Amy should debate the OC for a Pitchfork article!

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

"Shaaaynaaaa, you know it's TRASH."

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

meanwhile, I still want to know whether the Mendoza Line wear studded leather and carry whips onstage, them being so "dominant" and all.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:06 (twenty years ago)

No, that would be entertaining.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

ah.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

Dominant as in casting a long shadow over the contemporary rock wasteland.

― kornrulez6969 (TCBeing), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:26 (twenty years ago)

Dominant as in casting a long shadow over the contemporary rock wasteland.

you're talking about the contemporary rock wasteland on THIS planet?

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:30 (twenty years ago)

I'm just glad they weren't ripping on some reissue of Slow Dazzle by John Cale cuz then I would have been pissed that's good record.

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:31 (twenty years ago)

And if anybody else on this thread disparages or otherwise casts aspersions on the dominant Mendoza Line, I'm gonna tell Greil.

― kornrulez6969 (TCBeing), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:32 (twenty years ago)

Dominant as in casting a long shadow over the contemporary rock wasteland.

oh, of course! duh! how did I not see that! (xpost)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:33 (twenty years ago)

"you're talking about the contemporary rock wasteland on THIS planet?"

Mr. Marcus is going to be displeased.

― kornrulez6969 (TCBeing), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:33 (twenty years ago)

so I take it you're Greil's point man on that Marc Hogan fatwa, then?

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:35 (twenty years ago)

The Contemporary Rock Wasteland

― donut e- (donut), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:36 (twenty years ago)

Why has rock become so contemporary and so wasted? See it on Fox tonight at 7:30pm, 6:30 central

― donut e- (donut), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:37 (twenty years ago)

donut, I think we have a name for our band! (p.s. sorry I didn't mention this band earlier, but we're forming one now that we have the name)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:37 (twenty years ago)

HAHA, scarily enough, the acronym is CRW!

― donut e- (donut), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:38 (twenty years ago)

Do we get to tour with Dance Disaster Movement or The Negro Problem?

― donut e- (donut), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:39 (twenty years ago)

the Negro Problem broke up, so I guess it's DDM for us!

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:40 (twenty years ago)

Hey guys, sorry about the John Cage/Cale typo.

― marc h., Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:48 (twenty years ago)

at least it wasn't John Cake

― donut e- (donut), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:54 (twenty years ago)

John Cake of course being the Contemporary Rock Wasteland's experimental side project (it'll be all mash-ups of Cake songs over Cale compositions, fuck yeah)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Wednesday, 6 July 2005 23:56 (twenty years ago)

Actually, they will be John Cage/John Cale mashups done in Cakewalk software.

― donut e- (donut), Thursday, 7 July 2005 00:08 (twenty years ago)

can we please stop acting as if Pitchfork is one person? it's getting really old.

Matos it's fair (and part of a longstanding, i.e. as old as publications) tradition to do so, unless the task of editor is collectively undertaken!

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Thursday, 7 July 2005 00:15 (twenty years ago)

bullshit. I edit, and I run plenty of stuff I disagree with. not everything a publication runs is one editor's doing, sorry.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 00:27 (twenty years ago)

I know what you mean in re "a pub's voice," and that's legitimate (esp. w/Pitchfork much of the time). it's also totally lazy.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 00:28 (twenty years ago)

haha contradiction ahoy. I mean that it's legitimate to take something a publication runs as its overall stance. equally, I find it lazy to deflect a writer's viewpoint onto the pub instead of the writer much of the time. it's not an exact science. but the virulence of Pitchfork-hate seems as much like easy strawmanship ("It's Pitchfork, gotta make sure we talk about how it all sucks!") as whatever the offending statement/s boil/s down to.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 00:31 (twenty years ago)

not to mention that most publications have more than one editor, Pitchfork among them.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 00:32 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, respectfully disagree in re: "laziness." I think it's a valid critical strategy to treat a publication as the sum of its voices, and then to describe what those voices are saying once you take them together; moreover, I don't think that the heat Pitchfork takes for its perceived editorial slant amounts to several dozen, not to say several hundred or thousand, lazy readers. I know you're pretty impressed with changes at Pitchfork over the past couple of years; I wish I shared your enthusiasm, but where you see a growing (small-c) catholicism, I see rather sad need me-too schtick.

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:08 (twenty years ago)

sorry, "needy" in last phrase

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:09 (twenty years ago)

where you see a growing (small-c) catholicism, I see rather sad needy me-too schtick

haha yes, it's really obvious that they need to branch outside of indie rock given that (a) indie rock is in pretty healthy shape right now in terms of audience and (b) Pitchfork gets no attention at all from anyone at all these days so they have to force themselves to like music they don't like (which is certainly what you're implying even if it isn't what you said)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:13 (twenty years ago)

tonal mixup time: (a) was sincere, (b) wasn't. (and backatcha on respectfully.)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:14 (twenty years ago)

granted, my impression of (a) may be skewed given where I live; I don't think that's entirely it, though.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

(b) Pitchfork gets no attention at all from anyone at all these days so they have to force themselves to like music they don't like (which is certainly what you're implying even if it isn't what you said

well, I think it's a lot more complicated than that, but you'd acknowledge, surely, that Pitchfork (like any publication I'd guess!) wants, not to say craves, approval from its peers: which is (I'd say) why they (to their credit) spread the net a little over the past few years. To my ear, this net-spreading has involved little more than applying a fairly uninterrogated set of critera to a new genre or two. In those genres about which I'm able to speak with a little authority, I can say that their branching-out hasn't actually translated into anything like insight. Your mileage varies, more power to you, of course; I am perhaps more cynical.

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:29 (twenty years ago)

yeah, I imagine we're closer on this than this back and forth makes us sound. the genres I know enough about to feel authoritative about (dance stuff, basically) is handled a lot better than it used to be. I don't know if that's the case w/you but if it's not I could see where we differ. anyway, your overriding point (writers' voices = publication's, most of the time) is perfectly valid.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:32 (twenty years ago)

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