Most ridiculous "news" item on Pitchfork regarding the horribly overhyped crapfest known as Wavves

he's their Britney, I guess?

Can't put my finger on it, but something tells me not everyone likes this record as much as I do. Maybe not reading fucking Pitchfork all the time would enhance your appreciation.

WHY DO YOU MAKE ME READ ABOUT THIS BAND EVERY SINGLE DAY??!!!

I wish "he's their Britney, I guess?" was a poll option

I guess Wavves is to them as unnecessary polls are to ILX

these gossipy news items about nathan williams being an emo shit are an attempt by pfork to make people forget about the fact that they gave his album an 8.1.

^bold and italics - taste that scorn

Yeah it's all about the number they gave it.

Maybe not reading fucking Pitchfork all the time would enhance your appreciation.

Like any critic's site, I scan for stuff I like and read it accordingly. I just hate having to wade through crap like this all the time. Haven't actually read any of the Wavves "woe is me" crap in these news items... not my thing.

the way Tom wrote the Black Lips item cracked me up though, because it kinda called back to imo the funniest thing he's ever written: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/statusainthood/archives/2007/09/live_the_black.php

* "A friend of mine gave him MDMA (ecstasy), and he just couldn't take it."
* "It wasn't so much of a breakdown as it was him being a baby. And that's why I don't like him. I've heard stories from others that he's like a real dick. And just like a baby, thought he was really cool. But then when it came down to it, when the pressure came on he just couldn't take the heat. Some people can't do this.
* "That's cowardly to me. If you're gonna do this, you put your all into it. Otherwise, just stay at home. He's like a little puppy."
* "There's so many people that would wanna be doing that: being able to get flown over to Europe, and have people like your records and buying them. And then just blow it on your first show in Europe-- someone like that needs to not do this. He needs to go back to school or move back in with his parents and sit down and think about things. He shouldn't play music. He shouldn't tour."

gotta vote for black lips dude's blasting.

fwiw i have never heard any of these bands and have no problem with them becoming embarrassing Baby TMZ spectacles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3IxqXgchto

dude's music is awful fwiw

haha I was about to post that Youtube

lol @ "That band is just one big unfunny publicity-grubbing joke. And fuck that band."

I've never heard of this band before this very moment, but really, shite music, shite band, shite attitude.

please try to stay topic, there are already plenty of threads about wavves being shitty, this is a completely original thread about pitchfork sucking

^bold and italics - taste that scorn

if only i could have made it scroll across the screen as well...

Thought i was on Terminal Boredom for a sec.

I mean....FUCK WAVVES

starting @ 2:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4KkFy0jN5g

three of the 12 most-read news stories of the past three months are about Wavves; for context, the others are three about MJ, one is Jay Bennett's death, one is Adam Yauch's battle w/cancer, one is a roundup of Summer LP releases, and then items about Radiohead, Sonic Youth dissing Radiohead, and Wilco.

There is no better website out there that covers the indie music sphere than Pitchfork right now. Period. And that's not to say Pitchfork does a slightly less shitty job than all of the other shitty sites out there, no: Pitchfork has, for the most part, relevant news & tour updates, excellent record reviews, and well-researched and thoughtful features.

It's also one of the only major rock publications that doesn't consistently dump excess bullshit into my RSS reader everyday. (This shit about Wavvves, though, is stupid and should be relegated to a sentence or two in one of those summing-up-the-festival pieces instead of being placed in their own individual news stories.)

Semi-major publication in pandering to its audience for extra page views and the attendant ad revenue shocker.

I like Dusted.

please try to stay topic, there are already plenty of threads about wavves being shitty, this is a completely original thread about pitchfork sucking

― congratulations (n/a), Thursday, August 6, 2009 11:47 AM

haha

Trip Maker, I'll have to check Dusted out.

I've checked out Tiny Mix Tapes, Cokemachineglow, The Quietus, and other pubs like those occasionally, but they're not nearly as good as the venerable P4K.

dustedmagazine.com
they've been around for a long time. Even when the writing is laughable or embarrassing or just wrong-headed, it's still a LOT better than the writing on Pitchfork, imo.

kshighway, there is no pandering-- we had no expectation that a Wavves story or two would be that popular, since that makes no sense. If we sat around and determined what to cover based on the expectation of how many hits it would generate, Wavves would be very, very far down the list-- it surprises me as much as anyone. It's just, you know, context for the thread.

reporting that a band had a bad show at a festival is so silly though, i mean it's barely newsworthy, really--how is it "news"????

and then the subsequent interviews and updates and such are all so ridiculous. it's like a band has one bad show so there have to be five news posts about it?

It's newsworthy in the context was that it was on the Pitchfork stage and it was really, epically bad esp. in comparison with all of the other performances that night. It keeps coming up because of the death spiral of incidents it launched.

It isn't super-important but it is pretty funny.

but guys ... new wavve sluts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPJLAW1THME

i agree--it is funny

i didn't realize it was on the "pitchfork" stage until just now--I guess I can understand it a little better now but still.

d-damn (xxp)

she's doing better now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyg-pRhN6rM

I only found that out by going to the site and reading he first article; after that, the whole thing made a lot more sense to me.

also sometimes I miss indie chix

yeah but i "read" the first article, too--I guess i skimmed it

indie chix will always be there for you

haha it mentions the Pitchfork stage in the second sentence!

<3 indie chix, esp. since I no longer have to hit on them

i think he's good live but i find his recorded material to be basically unlistenable. also i think he's cute. that's how i feel. as for these stories. idk. they all seem like "news" to me as far as pfrok is concerned.

A member of the band quit. That is news. Previously announced tours and shows were scrapped. Also news. This stuff is regarded as news on our site regardless of how it happens, or where, or when.

There is a tempest/teacup aspect here no doubt, but reaction quotes, an explanation for what happened and why Wavves cancelled months of promo work, and info on what was happening next seems more than fair to me vs. not taking the time and putting in the effort to actually ask the guy about it.

Then it was just dumb luck that the guy went off and got himself hurt asap, but again he cancelled shows. We announce the shows, we frankly should tell people when they're cancelled as well.

from my perspective as a (probably not careful enough) reader of Pfork, a lot of the news articles we're talking about here read more like blog posts/entries than actual "news" articles though. like the Jared Swilley reaction--that's not exactly news. and that's okay, i think that's the tone y'all are probably going for, and this is just one person's opinion, obviously.

well frankly scottpl, I don't give a damn

(and also i think it's fair to say that some of these articles fall in both categories--some of them are straight up news, and some are more gossipy, etc.)

The Black Lips reaction is the first thing I've ever come across that has made me want to listen to them!

HI DERE, I totally agree with that! But wasn't the whole discussion about Wavves that the lol was really that P4k's audience cared about this shit? Like, lol @ obsessive fandom categorically. it just happens that in this case we make another argument for why it's a good thing that Oberst made this public and it got reported.

It is a little tacky whenever anyone decides they're famous enough that what they do/say is noteworthy.

Why is this "a little tacky"? Such people are in a position to actually change a few minds. I don't think it's "unfair" (nb those scarequotes are my attempt to parse how it's tacky for a person in a position of influence to use that influence) for a person who knows others care about his opinions to voice those opinions in such a way that those who might hear them, and whose agreement might make a difference, will hear.

obsessive fandom = a music website reporting news about musicians

if pitchfork reported that Oberst pitched a softball game

it would 100% deserve a round clowning on this thread

clowning a guy for trying to make a difference on behalf of people he sees as getting the short end of the stick from the ruling class OTOH is kinda bullshit imo

Why might someone think that? Because I guess as human beings we recognize that other human beings can feel like what they do/feel/think is really important, or be humble about those things, so when someone calls a lot of attention to their opinions, it's a pretty human reaction to feel like that person isn't being humble. i'm not making a moral decision about whether this is a good/bad thing, i'm just saying it's an understandable thing.

But wasn't the whole discussion about Wavves that the lol was really that P4k's audience cared about this shit?

That wasn't the whole discussion; in fact, most of the discussion was arguing about the definition of "indie" and whether it was mutable or not.

Arizona promoter and activist Charlie Levy wrote an open letter to artists asking them not to boycott the state

Now, Billboard has posted an open letter from Oberst to Levy, explaining why he supports the boycott.

you really have a strange idea of "calling a lot of attention"

yeah but again that goes back to what i'm tryna say: yes its understandable, but is it really a good thing that things are such that it is.
xxp

also most of the lol from my end was not about the Pitchfork audience caring about Wavves as much as it was schadenfreude about a band whose music I disliked getting too much exposure too quickly and imploding so fast that the publication that foisted them on everyone turned around and started savaging them

then that other dude started slinging around homophobic slur and everything just became kind of sad and ugly

Mordy, you did not say "someone might think" - you said "it's a little tacky." You are, in fact, making a moral decision about it; it's right there on the screen; your position seems to be that if people might be seen as grandstanding, it's more important that they be humble than that they express their convictions. Even if the expression they might give could make some difference, it's more important that they be aware that they might look silly to others. I can't see how that isn't a fair description of your position, which strikes me as reactionary.

i appreciate the photo in the op

plaxico otm

Oy. I really don't have anything to add to what I said. I feel like I'm arguing some minor point about what a normal human reaction is, and since I haven't even stated my opinion on whether writing the letter was good (presumably if it got more people to be aware of and involved in the boycott), or even if boycotting the state was good (presumably if it makes a difference in changing the law in Arizona, or in other moral shifts later on), I'm really not sure what we're discussing.

xp to J0hn, it is in the sense that it evokes that reaction in human beings. I think the question is whether it's worth calling attention to yourself publicly like that for the sake of a greater good. And imo, if it is indeed for a greater good, then yes, it's worth it.

Someone writing a large open letter to a magazine his friend about why he's boycotting Arizona sounds corny and ridiculous to me

yeah, I guess this is the point where I just don't get it: he's boycotting an entire freaking state! tossing out a few paragraphs explaining why to people who care strikes me as ... just basically polite, I guess? I dunno. I guess he could have let de la Rocha write a letter and signed on to that, then nobody would be much surprised by anything.

what I'm getting is that you're talking more about an economy of attention and who gets paid attention to, and on that level I do understand people rolling their eyes about who is and is not in a position to be heard out about their opinions and decisions, who they're sick of hearing about, etc. but I don't think that really relates all that much to anything Oberst is doing, or the quality of his decisions. it's more of an eye-roll at the universe, maybe. or just a natural human reaction to the fact that we live in such an "economy of attention" in the first place.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, nabisco.

(Like really really. Not being sarcastic. I'm just saying I understand ksh's eye-rolling.)

yes. but that's an eye-roll we should probably be REALLY clear is about us and "natural human reactions" and the modern world, and not really at all about the person we're discussing or what normal, defensible thing they just chose to do.

and what people have been saying for two days on this thread is that it's sorta dangerous and shitty when we start applying that economy-of-attention eye-roll to things like political action and moral/ethical decisions, as opposed to just "oh, so-and-so has a new record out, BARF."

because it's probably more important for moral/political/ethical stuff to be right and effective than that they're "cool" or "interesting" or above eye-rolling.

btw what happened to ksh in all of this

had to go out--missed the big launch of pitchfork's altered zones

I agree with that nabisco, I'd just add the caveat that it seems unfair to jump down someone's throat for finding that "economy-of-attention" eye-rolly, when that economy-of-attention is itself politically mediated and there are good reasons generally to feel like the ways that people give attention, and the reasons why people attain that attention are themselves situated in all sorts of problematic politics themselves.

like people roll their eyes at Bono all the time when he's doing good things in the world. presumably you feel the same way there, but maybe you'd be less quick to yell at them for it for whatever reason?

I agree with that nabisco, I'd just add the caveat that it seems unfair to jump down someone's throat for finding that "economy-of-attention" eye-rolly, when that economy-of-attention is itself politically mediated and there are good reasons generally to feel like the ways that people give attention, and the reasons why people attain that attention are themselves situated in all sorts of problematic politics themselves.

yes but that isn't what ksh was doing. this is what he wrote.

man I'm so glad we have Conor Oberst out there looking out for us, I sleep so much fucking better at night, and my parents would've never had to install and alarm system in our house when I was like fucking five because I thought ppl were going to break in -- I would've felt SAFE if he hadn't been like fucking ten back in 1992

― ksh, Monday, July 5, 2010 2:12 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark

which is clearly "what a fucking idiot this asshole Oberst is for imagining that his infantile positions might make any kind of difference in the world," which, again, is a horseshit stance

imo

I think the subtext of that comment was obviously, "Oberst is a celebrity, lol that I'd care about his attempts to do good in the world."

well - that way lies a nihilism so total that it seems worth interrogating, to my mind

okay I know pomo and being DEEP is a thing with pretty much all of us, myself included, but sometimes we should stop digging so deeply for subtext that we stop paying attention to text

lol i had to read that four times before i realized you weren't saying 'porno'.

tomayto tomahto

"porno and being DEEP" are incredibly important to me

whoa didn't see this thread, i'm sure nabisco or someone has pointed this out already but certain ppl upthread having a realllly difficult time segregating art & content - like when mordy was saying he agreed with the message of that lame oberst song but thought the art itself was hacky, that should have nothing to do with whether he has the capacity to speak about politics - it's not like the letter he wrote was in rhyming couplets! again sorry this is old news now likely

xp that dan perry post (w/out me knowing context) seems pretty otm

also apparently if you get ksh worked up enough he starts posting in capital letters again! (<3 u ksh)

hey k3v, welcome to thread. i wasn't saying that I agreed with the message of his song, just that i empathized with his frustration with the Bush administration. don't know what the song has to do with whatever i said in this thread tho about his letter, but whatevs.

well mordy, at the risk of turning this into another "mordy and kevin disagree about politics" thread and in the interest of avoiding semantic games (well i meant this! no i was really saying this!) i'll go back to what i said to you a couple weeks ago about our mans gg and say, in general, political expression is not indie rock, indie rock criticism, or art - even when political views are contained in an indie rock song! i haven't read the whole thread so i'm not talking about you in particular i guess, but when talking about the political views of an artist, one has to divorce the views themselves from the person expressing them. and faulty is the logic saying "this person has said *this* in the past, or has associated with *these* people, or believes *this*, so therefore anything s/he says is not worth considering on its own merits"

i'm not making a moral decision about whether this is a good/bad thing, i'm just saying it's an understandable thing.

again gonna try to avoid bringing up old beefs but you've used this rhetoric before (the "i'm not SAYING, i'm just sayin' it's sorta understandable y'know?" thing where you cleverly avoid taking a stance on the actual issue), and i'd suggest that you engage with the content itself rather than try to legitimize reactions which, as you say, may be natural but aren't morally grounded, as aerosmith has said.

and furthermore such reactions are only "natural" or understandable insofar as they betray a certain thoughtlessness, or lack of consideration or perspective; the nature of someone's reaction to something like this is hardly sacrosanct - maybe this is where we disagree

He then decided, professionally, to boycott Arizona. He then decided that this would be of interest to his fans and the general public (maybe for the altruistic purposes of encouraging others to join him to make a difference -- I'm not making this judgement). Again, I'm not arguing here that this is my belief! I'm just saying that I understand the position. It makes sense that someone might be turned off by that kind of political display! It is a little tacky whenever anyone decides they're famous enough that what they do/say is noteworthy. When I think something I only imagine the people I know personally would care, and probably not even then. Oberst believes the world cares. Maybe that's great! But it's still fair to feel it's weird.

― Mordy, Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:34 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

in this sense, celebrity is a blessing, as it empowers us in those moments when we are morally obligated to act on our beliefs. oberst is (not uniquely, but uncommonly) empowered in this regard. his voice carries more weight than yours or mine. i'd argue that this makes him not less but more obligated to speak his mind when his principles seem to demand it. as far as i'm concerned, anyone who fails to speak as loudly and clearly as they can under such circumstances is nothing but a coward, a passive enabler of the wrongdoing they wish they had the guts to oppose.

there is nothing "corny" about raising a moral objection. there is nothing corny about using all the power at your disposal to put your moral objection across to others. it is quite simply your moral duty as a human being. just as it's your moral duty to respond when those in danger call for help.

i.e., it's not that oberst thinks the world cares. rather, oberst hopes that other people care enough about his moral statement to attend to and perhaps echo it. he hopes that his voice matters, as i hope mine does when i feel the need to raise it.

make that x-post 2nd sentence: the right to make a public statements...

note the invisible strikethrough on that "a"

Maybe he is explaining himself to the hurting venues and his fan base in AZ, and he is speaking on behalf of the other boycotting artists? Doesn't that answer everything? Did anybody say that yet? Why isn't that the answer?

again gonna try to avoid bringing up old beefs but you've used this rhetoric before (the "i'm not SAYING, i'm just sayin' it's sorta understandable y'know?" thing where you cleverly avoid taking a stance on the actual issue), and i'd suggest that you engage with the content itself rather than try to legitimize reactions which, as you say, may be natural but aren't morally grounded, as aerosmith has said.

<3's, but fuck u. this is ilx. as much as i enjoy hanging out with you guys, you're not my actual political community or my family. for me, ilx is a place to discuss ideas i have fun with, or am interested in. if you desperately want to know what my personal moral beliefs are, you can find me on facebook, integrate yourself into my life, and then ask me personally. or make some shit up about what i think - god knows you do that enough on ilx already.

what's your view on the death penalty, mords?

pro killing conor oberst apparently

that sorta goes w/out saying

A pretty amazing lineup of classic Saddle Creek bands will join forces in Omaha on July 31 for the Concert For Equality. Raising funds to help the ACLU Nebraska's effort to repeal Fremont, NE's Anti-Immigrant law, a reunited Desaparecidos and Lullaby for the Working Class will be joined by Bright Eyes and Cursive. Gillian Welch & David Rawlings will also be performing along with other bands to be announced soon. Advance tickets are available here, and we would suggest picking some up soon as they are going fast.

posting so ksh won't miss his chance to buy tix!

Serious love for Lullaby For the Working Class. Don't give a shit about any other Saddle Creek bands. If I wasn't on the east coast I'd go just for them.

Plus I always considered them a Bar/None band.

http://cdn.hipsterrunoff.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/800/20110203-cbhjw6ua1dfjgndpxe5npmysnd.jpg

That Black Lips attack was lame

http://pitchfork.com/news/60421-wavves-nathan-williams-shares-album-art-goes-off-on-label-you-dont-scare-me/

So I just got this PR thing send in the mail about their new album and these five opening paragraphs in the new bio are killing me:

The word 'brat' has followed Nathan Williams around for almost a decade, but at the age of 30, with a fully-fledged business to his name, as well as the ongoing success of band Wavves, his rebellious streak has proven not just purposeful but pretty damn inspiring. The San Diego native knows how to play the system, so when the major labels came knocking a few years ago looking to turn Wavves into the next so-called saviours of radio rock'n'roll, Williams and bassist Stephen Pope made sure they used it to their advantage.

"We were just trying to go to eat at nice places in LA," he laughs. "There were a few people from majors who would not stop reaching out to us. They were obsessed. They thought we had heat and they needed an edgy big rock band like they used to have in the '90s. Me and Stephen were in our shitty apartments, Googling 'nicest restaurants in LA'. We went to eight or nine dinners. At the end we'd say, 'not interested'."

When Warners came along and offered them a cash advance too good to refuse, they accepted while being shrewdly aware of what they were getting themselves into. "We still owned all of our shit, which was the most important part for us. For them it was a shot in the dark." The day to day of being signed to a major, however, was unpredictable and beyond their wildest nightmares. "I figured it would run the same as [prior label] Fat Possum, just with more people. I was wrong." By the time they were readying to release their second Warners album - 2015's 'V' - shots were fired. Williams released single 'Way Too Much' on Soundcloud before the label had approved it, the label forgot to sign off on the artwork and, in the end, Wavves felt swept under the rug. Ultimately it felt like a career step backwards.

"I'd never come in contact with such a poorly run company in my life," says Williams. "It was anarchy. Nobody knew what they were doing. Turnover rate was like an American Apparel. It was really all cons - unless you're a cash cow. For everyone else, major labels can't help you. Maybe at one time they could, but that time is dead." The birds-eye view on Warners' inner mess wound up pushing Williams to legitimize his own business - Ghostramp. "I figured if these idiots could get by, we could do it a hundred times better."

With that fighting spirit, Williams took back control and realized his own teenage dreams. Today, during a Monday lunchtime hour, he's making time between meetings to talk about forthcoming sixth Wavves record 'You're Welcome' in the stock room at Ghostramp's Chinatown-based LA skate shop. Opening in October 2016, Ghostramp is the physical embodiment of a vision that harks back to before Williams made the first Wavves' albums in his parents' garage. It's a merchandise store, it's a label, it's a tangible community in a time when the digital age has taken the confidence out of physical product. And - what's more - it's working. 'You're Welcome' is the soundtrack to this new lease of freedom. It's Williams' tongue-in-cheek rebirth as a self-released, self-actualized, self-promoting punk kingpin, and despite putting his money where his uncensored mouth is, he's emerged not just unscathed but with the upper hand. "I'm my own boss and that feels great," he smiles.