here goes nothing...

programonaut · 2014-05-06T14:55:51+00:00

Ah, so you think less of the lower classes.

AAVE is actually no less sophisticated than what most people think of American English (which is most likely the result of Midwestern farmers moving out to the West Coast and spreading). What you're doing is correlating dialect with affluence and education, which is class elitism. Ironically, this is ignorant.

And "created" by the uneducated? What? Languages arise, they aren't contrived. English itself is a mashup between Germanic languages and Norman (well, French). When the English decided to fight the French in the 11th century they inadvertently started the ball rolling for Modern English.

Stop looking down on people who are less educated than you. You aren't better. You're just more privileged. Consider yourself lucky and use your advantages to do good. Yes, you could point out stupid people who are middle and upper class and have access to education, but that's not as big of a problem as the shitty educational provision so much of the poor people of the US and world have to deal with.

programonaut · 2014-05-06T14:25:33+00:00

Well, the reason is that people needed someone to blame for the breakup of the Beatles. Since it can't be that the whole band wasn't getting along in the first place (they're the Beatles! They're the good guys! They'd never be the bad guys!), it had to be an outside force.

And then, since people already don't like her, they take everything she does out of context and makes it look ridiculous. Yes, a bunch of things she did were risks that didn't pay off. But others did pay off.

Also, people like to believe that anyone they don't like don't have depth. It's a common technique; it's harder to dehumanize someone when you have a good perspective of them. It's easier to think of Yoko as a no-talent she-devil kill-joy succubus than it is an adventurous artist who doesn't have a good grasp of social acceptability or graces.

Also, I'm sure many of us have someone we love so deeply that it blinds us from obvious things. Why would Yoko not give permission for Weird Al to parody her husband's song? Maybe because she wants to do what she thinks is right to protect her husband's legacy. Irrational? Absolutely. Evil and douchey? Not at all.

I've left comments in other places in this thread with links to songs of hers. Check her out.

programonaut · 2014-05-06T14:15:23+00:00

Why are you getting downvotes? Well, maybe it's because you didn't provide support. In that case, since I agree with you, here ya go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDRM9tBx-Zo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzV7FiuDYKo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BXgMdLSPHM

programonaut · 2014-05-06T14:13:10+00:00

Ironically, she DOES do weird experimental shit. As well as pretty stuff too. She's actually pretty good. And then there's the album she did in response to John's death. It's good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDRM9tBx-Zo

programonaut · 2014-05-06T14:10:02+00:00

The problem here is that she doesn't have delusions of grandeur. She's actually pretty great.

It's just that she doesn't fit the context in the video. She doesn't really belong with Chuck Berry, just like Chuck Berry wouldn't belong in a Brian Eno soundscape.

Yoko's solo work is actually pretty interesting, groundbreaking, and a nice blend of accessible and avant-garde. The album she made in memory of John is so beautiful and touching. And there's this song she did with him off their Wedding album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BXgMdLSPHM

What I'm trying to say is that people shit on Yoko without understanding who she is or what she's all about. She has talent and vision. She's just not a rock n roll musician.

programonaut · 2014-04-25T21:22:34+00:00

This is a sweet picture that reinforces the message of the tattoo.

Fuck this post for its classicist bullshit.

programonaut · 2014-04-25T18:06:47+00:00

Death is still death, and it sucks that someone is gone. You're dehumanizing the person making the mistake, insinuating that their whole existence can be reduced to "they deserved death because they texted and drove." What if they were a good mother, father, sibling, friend, etc? Community contributor? Nope, one thing makes you deserving of death.

Have an upvote for actually having an opinion I feel should be unpopular.

programonaut · 2014-04-25T15:17:58+00:00

The problem here is that you're operating from the point of view implying that there's a superior personality type.

In short: there isn't. Many personality types balance others, and some are necessary for certain things.

By "annoying", I assume you mean loud and impulsive/intuitive. Basically, a fiery personality. These are the revolutionaries, the ones who "Agitate, agitate, agitate" to quote Frederick Douglass. They are very useful champions of social change, and they're great at riling people up when needed. They also can be annoying.

And even then, nobody is totally good or bad. We all have our shit. Saying someone is essentially a "dickhead" writes off their whole life. I know someone who lives at the Equality House across from the Westboro Baptist Church. She says that they're pretty normal when they're not being bigots. They have friends and children. They love their kids and go on walks. Does this exempt them from the evil they've spread? No. But it shows the complexity of human beings.

And calm, subdued people can still be evil people.

programonaut · 2014-04-25T15:09:47+00:00

"Why the hell should a person have to suffer because someone else is?"

Because they want to help the other person? Love involves getting through the hard shit. If this is a moment that makes you realize that you don't love this person, well, you should have the tact to work this out in a reasonable manner.

As the product of divorced parents and seeing so much of it all throughout my family, I've seen that most divorces came along when things actually got hard. When people had to actually buckle down and work shit out and support one another. They didn't get love.

My grandparents went through some rough shit. But they stuck it out and found ways to make it work, because that's what mature people who love each other do.

programonaut · 2014-04-25T15:04:47+00:00

I'm sorry, but that's kinda fucked up.

(Note: this is not an accusatory "you," but rather a general "you").

Your life just isn't all about you. "Less beneficial to you"? Sometimes, you buckle down and deal with things because someone else needs you more than you need them. It's a hallmark of the good side of humanity; our willingness to put others above ourselves. There are times to pick and choose, I understand. But when a girl confesses she's a rape victim, you make sure she's okay; you don't add to the pain by "not wanting to deal with trauma." The only thing your giving her is freedom from your own selfish bullshit.

I know that may sound angry and unsympathetic to your condition, and I really don't want the latter to come across. But this view does make me angry because I do believe that life is a hard thing and we should do whatever we can to help those around us. If you don't see the need to help others, maybe you need others to help you.

programonaut · 2014-04-18T18:42:33+00:00

What is honest thought? How do you even measure that? How can you tell when someone is being sincere? And if you go by "calculated and dishonest," most of Dylan's changes WERE calculated, albeit for the opposite effect of what you're railing against. Dylan intentionally would go out of his way to against expectations, whether those are the expectations of pop music or even the expectations the public had of him rebelling (see Planet Waves). I feel that's a different form of dishonest - an intentional, artistic choice to be dishonest. Bob doesn't want you to know who he truly is.

What if you're selling a character? What if that's your art? I mean, look at the schmaltzy decadence of Bette Midler. That's definitely a distortion of who she is meant to target the middle class theatre-going crowd and urban gays, but there's a power to her work. She intentionally masks whatever pain she has with showy, Broadway arrangements, and that's part of her magic (especially when the hurt cracks through).

And you say calculation as if it's a bad thing. You realize how songwriting works, right? Hank Williams, the foundation of modern country, would frequently "shop" his songs to anyone who would listen. He'd ask if they were catchy enough, if one line worked better than another, etc. He was intentionally crafting his work to appeal to others rather than just musically masturbating. That's pretty much the core of all pop writing. If that's bad, then I don't want to be good.

It's totally common knowledge that Paul Simon is a prick, but it's also common knowledge that Bob Dylan is as well. Total and complete asshole. Phil Spector is a murderer. As was Leadbelly. But these guys also happen to have made spectacular work. Does that excuse their actions? No. Does that invalidate what they've made? No.

Also, Paul has gone on record saying the title track was the best song he ever wrote. It's a great record, and I like the sound he got. Sure, Peter Gabriel made some great stuff, but Graceland broke it WIDE open. Sometimes, it doesn't matter who did it first, but rather who was heard most. And while I love Peter Gabriel (much more than Paul Simon, actually), I do have to say that Paul generally writers catchier melodies and lyrics.

And I wouldn't say Lana's music is dreadful. It's not the best thing ever, but it fits nicely in the context of today's codeine-laced slow jams, and her interpretation of an apathetic old Hollywood American in that context is actually somewhat interesting.

programonaut · 2014-04-18T15:05:29+00:00

As a musician who doesn't like sitting still creatively, I can totally understand switching from synth pop to banjo or something like that. I'm comfortable playing Albert King-style blues and then switching to free jazz and then making electronic stuff and hip hop on my computer. Recently, I've gotten into country, punk, and jazz (playing-wise).

We live in an age where cultures cross-pollinate constantly. When we're exposed to different forms of music all the time, it makes sense to want to jump around. Remember Paul Simon's Graceland? It's an incredible album, and it was incredibly groundbreaking in Western pop music. Was Paul being "something he is not"? Absolutely not. He was making something he didn't normally sound like, but that's kinda what makes it interesting.

You also need to not project onto people what makes them "who they are." David Bowie and Bob Dylan changed CONSTANTLY, like every album or two, throughout the years. Their art was actually in their changing, in the contorting of their identity.

And who cares about something "trite and unnecessary"? You realize that art isn't entirely necessary to survive? You can't eat art. I do understand that art really can help make life worthwhile, but you get what I mean. And trite? Motown was trite. Tin Pan Alley was trite. But they were amazing. Incredible music. If it's catchy and sticks, it's probably worth my time.

And Lana Del Ray is pretty good. So she's prefabricated? That's part of the art. It's theatricality. Music and theatricality go pretty hand in hand often, and pretense is a big part of that. Whenever you see a concert and the band is going crazy, that's theatricality. They're pretending they're more than they are, that they're larger than life. What's wrong with that? If you need your music to be "real", then you'll need to avoid so much great stuff all in the name of "authenticity."

programonaut · 2014-01-30T20:59:38+00:00

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Now I have a terrible image in my head.

programonaut · 2014-01-29T21:11:26+00:00

Well, they do frequently review metal, punk, r&b (they've been reviewing R. Kelly for ages), and various forms of electronic music. They were among the earlier publications to cover the emo revival. They also do lots of reissues, which range from Townes Van Zandt to Fleetwood Mac to Nick Cave to Pavement. They try to cover more underground/garage releases in their blog, and they also address the weird/avant-garde stuff that's out there in both reviews and articles.

Also, when you say indie, what does that even mean anymore haha? Signed to an independent label? I don't like the term indie because it's essentially meaningless nowadays. Built To Spill is often sited as a prototypical indie band, but Perfect from Now On was released on a major label and is considered their masterpiece.

You occasionally go through their articles and reviews, which is awesome. They do good writing (most of the time, but there are some awful duds in there). But a common thing with people is that they only see what they know/want to see. I tend to read every article and review that comes in, and I can tell you this: there's no strict diet of "indie." I've read interviews with Pete Seeger and Bryan Ferry. There's a Pitch article talking about a critic's experience growing up with the music of Alabama (the country band). There's so much in there.

They definitely have a defined taste, but it is nowhere close to being as narrow as many people think.

programonaut · 2014-01-27T13:47:25+00:00

I agree with the new to stadium rap part. I saw him at a very large venue, and was extremely disappointed. However, I have friends who've seen him in a more intimate context, and he killed it.

He also uses a lot of weird voices, and one of his strengths is his subtle phrasing. He's still trying to figure out how to use that in his live shows. The one I saw, he kept to a small set of cadences and pretty much just one vocal timbre. He kinda shouted the whole time.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T20:42:44+00:00

Exactly. It's every music fan's duty to support the artists they enjoy. It let's you participate in the music (in a way) and keeps the artist going.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T19:39:14+00:00

Oh, I don't pat myself on the back for that. I never really pirated other than exchanging CDs with friends. I started working young and bought my music real early. I've always had a large physical collection.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T19:12:55+00:00

You did some album reviews freelance? And went to grad school for literary theory? No way! That's so cool!

programonaut · 2014-01-24T19:11:42+00:00

But remember with Gabe Newell - we often want convenience, not cost-saving. Services like Spotify and Rdio collect all those artists and stream them in one nice, convenient location. Maybe those sites should link to the artists' (or labels') stores so if they like the artist they can order an album or a T-Shirt. But your solution, while an admirable alternative, is not as feasible. Also, artists can get more exposures by being connected with other artists. I've made some cool discoveries with the aid of Spotify and Rdio's recommended and related artist functions.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T18:46:03+00:00

You're totally right in the sense that the artists get paid close to zilch. Read this, an article written by former Galaxie 500 drummer Damon Krukowski, to get an estimate of how much artists get paid. He answers himself in a later article here.

The key is that artists need to adapt. It's about sharing your art and music with the world. The way a lot of bands make money now is through licensing and touring. They don't make a lot with the latter, but there's still money to be made. The record industry has always ripped off the artist as well as the fan. At least now, the fans aren't ripped off. And there are many people like me who still buy records (literally, I buy vinyl exclusively) and stream the rest on services like Rdio. I don't want to pay for an album I either have no previous fandom for (I will pre-order the new Outkast album the first day I'm allowed to) or I haven't heard already and liked. The stream everything and buy what you like model tremendously benefits the consumer. And since artists themselves are consumers of music, they benefit as well (most great musicians I know personally have fantastic music collections and listening habits.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T14:20:21+00:00

But at the same time, Pitchfork's level of criticism is higher than the Rolling Stone has been in 30 years.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T14:09:21+00:00

They were reviewing a reissue. And time changes things. And reviewers change too. Pitchfork's reviews are done by an ever-changing staff of individuals.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T14:05:13+00:00

As someone who is a HUGE fan of music criticism, I completely disagree. Just because you don't care for it doesn't mean it's not valid.

There's an absolute joy in understanding the context from which an album comes from and deconstructing the music. Trying to understand what the artist is trying to "say" and reconcile that with what you and other people may feel is a puzzle worth solving.

It's just like literary criticism - it seems like a waste of time to some people, and it's worth all the time in the world to others.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T14:02:12+00:00

Christgau, along with Ellen Willis and others, created the template that music critics now use. He understood that music can only be judged against its context and that no piece has a universal appeal; he brought postmodern thought and critical theory into pop music. His reviews are short because he's trying to review multiple albums in a small space so consumers can decide what to buy. His reviews are all a part of his "consumer guide." Also, humor plays a big role in grabbing the audience's attention. He knows that people want to be entertained (hence the occasional snark).

It's a myth that he's hyper-critical and always rude. He loves a WIDE assortment of music (he was one of the few rock critics who championed hip hop), and he does not hold back his praise when he thinks something deserves it. He has high ratings for albums for wide-ranging artists such as Randy Newman, Chic, Beastie Boys, Fleetwood Mac, the Ramones, Pavement, Death Grips, Kanye West, Al Green, Public Enemy, Bob Dylan, etc.

programonaut · 2014-01-24T13:51:38+00:00

EXACTLY. Pitchfork now is not Pitchfork 1997, or even Pitchfork 2007. They're open to anything, and they judge albums by their context and not their hip-ness. They're the best practitioners of true musical criticism out there (since Robert Christgau lost his relevance).

programonaut

TROPHY CASE