Guess the critic!

rex reed.

2. You're right about about one thing at least: all those records are shit, and you might as well have burned all those dollar bills. (Closer, 12 bucks, haw haw haw!) But those records aren't shit for the reasons that you think: those records are shit because they're all too good!

xpost oh you kid!!!

3. An avid reader of this and many other local blogs — even as he prepares for a Hollywood wedding — bassist and songwriter Pete Wentz contacted me this morning and said he felt compelled to speak out about the promoter’s ordinance. We connected a few hours later after the law was tabled (for the time being).

4. Listen, lookit, very simply, musicologically and ethnically, the
Beatles were essentially empirical mélangistes of a rhythmically radical yet verbally passé and temporally transcendent lyrical content, welded with historically innovative melodic material, transposed and transmogrified by the angst of the Liverpool ethnic experience which elevated them from essentially alpha exponents of, in essence, merely beta potential harmonic material into the prime cultural exponents of Aeolian cadenzic cosmic stanza form.

#2 is Bangs. No idea about the others.

Correct!

Hint:

#1 is from Sounds
#3 is from a column
#4 is a quote from a film

4. geir

ha ha there's a word (intentionally) wrong in #4

#4, though I've never actually seen it before, isn't it Wilfrid Mellers? (I seem to recall he was the one who came up with the "Aeolian" cadence reference, but I could be wrong.)

actually, now that I've read it again, I'm starting to wonder if it's a parody of the thing I'm referring to...

oh, forget it, it's from a film... the Rutles?? But who's the critic?

4. geir momus

3. jim derogatis?

eric idle in the rutles yeah. but is he meant to be someone famous?

Well the 'Aeolic cadenzic' bit is definitely a reference to an early UK review of the Beatles in the Times, IIRC.

Haha, yeah! #4 was kind of a trick: It's Stanley J. Krammerhead III, Jr. from The Rutles.

And Lawrence the Looter, yr right. It's DeRogatis. He loves Pete Wentz!

Another hint on #1:

Also wrote this, from The Face in 1981.

Pop, that disposable distraction, is mostly about transience: it’s the order of the perpetual child, the moment! Not that those last long these days. Most people forget the dynamics of what began, industrially, as excess trash. A blinga a blanga / A bippety bop / I’m going down to the record shop — yeah!

So, anyway, little girl asks Santa for a Taylor Swift guitar and a Taylor Swift dress, and Santa not only comes through - with little black dress comes a black headband and black gloves like Taylor's - but also a pair of black cowboy boots like Taylor's that the little girl "didn't order." "It took her a minute or two to grasp the concept that they were hers even though she hadn't included them in her list of what her dad has dubbed the Taylor Swift starter stalker kit."

OK, obviously Taylor looks really good in the dresses she chooses, which vary from sundresses to prom dresses, but she also looks good in the one photo I found of her in jeans, and lots of country performers who don't shun the feminine and don't shun dresses (Faith Hill, LeAnn Rimes, Miranda Lambert, Carrie Underwood, Deana Carter, Martina McBride, Kellie Pickler) will sometimes wear jeans or pants and unlike Taylor haven't turned dresses into almost a signature. And Gretchen Wilson, who never wears dresses, looks plenty hot. Gretchen goes more for the working-class sassy broad look, the big-bosomed tough-girl, w/ low-necked blouses and bouncing tits.

Obviously, Gretchen's not going for an upmarket look, but it seems to me that it's too quick and easy to say that Taylor is, or to identify Taylor as a prep. There's something too idiosyncratic about Taylor's look, for one thing. Also, she's accessibly dressy, her style of clothes available at relatively inexpensive knockoff joints like Forever 21. She's not going to be wowing the sk8ers and the emos, but the rednecks and the grits won't necessarily be averse. That's my guess.

Frank Kogan?!

Taylor Swift, "Ok,...", bouncing tits

1 = Paul Morley? Ian Penman?

lol

You're close with Morley!

5. When I suggested this nutty thing – and when Tom agreed with alacrity! – I took some time one afternoon and looked through my collection. I had a basic rule of thumb – whatever it was that I would choose had to be something I owned and enjoyed. I am not interested in what I’m supposed to like, but in what I actually like.

So that should serve as an initial warning right there – like Tom is doing with his list, I pretend no universalist approach. If your favorite album of the decade was indeed Nevermind, say, more power to ya – it’s nowhere on my own list, though I don’t mind it as a record. The opinions expressed herein are mine unto eternity, but should you disagree, my general reaction is, "That’s cool." That’s why your list is different from mine. ;-)

look what i did!

Hahaha Roxy. :-) (I was kinda wondering if I'd end up on this thread.)

Haw, correct, natch!

Ok, another hint on #1:

"History is made by those who say 'No,' and Punk's utopian heresies remain its gift to the world."

jon savage

YES!

History is also made by those who say YES loud enough(yay or nay,it's the caps that make the cut)

That's a pretty shabby sentence, but no worse than most of the quotes (no dis on Ned nor Krammerhead though: "the Liverpool ethnic experience"!)

Heheh

RIP Wilfrid Mellers.

6. Rock critics show up in the very first scene (a cinema first?), but the film gives no acknowledgment that St. Anger got horrible reviews. In fact, from an opening blurb calling them the top touring band of the '90s through a concluding one where the album tops charts all over the world, much of Monster is just a two-and-a-half-hour puff piece about how "important" Metallica are and, worse, how much "integrity" they have. ("We've proven that you can make aggressive music without negative energy," gawd.) The first 45 minutes drag; things picks up once old-married-couple control freaks Lars and James start acting like they're gonna beat each other's brains out.

7. These high priests of the idiom were often pretty sloppy, because they really just wanted to keep the beat going, to flow, to go. Led Zeppelin weren't, despite a million taxonomic mistakes, heavy metal. (See any music guide anywhere.) And that sloppiness is for the 20 great bootlegs I already own. But this time they're not sloppy. They might even be straight. I've never heard Zep play this fast, swing so hard, make such windy and brutal music. You know those show-offy things Bonham does on the tom-toms, the thing that drummers do when someone is tuning that drives your girlfriend insane? Here, he just drops them into the river of music without admitting he's done it—just little turnarounds in the fray, because he's so fucking happy to be in this band with his boyfriends. He doesn't even know he's done it. Plant hits the Viking war cry dead on, and John Paul Jones's bass sounds like the Paradise Garage is underneath the Long Beach Arena, bleeding into the midst of this . . . this . . . what? Rock band? Weapons testing? (See also Los Alamos.)

That last one is SFJ, hasta be.

And I feel like answering #6 would be cheating, because I specifically remember that review.

Gotta be Chuck.

7 is SFJ yeah

That Zep graf is nice.

Gotta be Chuck.

'tis.

confirmed