defining the enemy 1

Some of you might have blinked and missed this. A recent link to a recent post on the Drowned In Sound message boards caused some people to get very hot under the collar.

It does seem that a lot of the outrage might have been avoided if I'd just asked Sean (the man in charge) to publish the article in the regular article position on the site, and then everyone reading it would have understood its purpose, even if they hadn't agreed with its content. Because, heaven knows, message-board users don't like having their routines messed with.

Anyway, this is part one. And yes, it's an edit.

Defending The Indefensible – 4: Sigur Rós
Everett_True 68 replies 04:02 July 1st, 2009

For the music-lovers among us, I thought you might enjoy this.

Reply

• Truly cretinous

olegrich | 1 Jul '09, 11:15

o This article, not sigur ros

olegrich | 1 Jul '09, 11:15

• Wierd

Lol opinons, but you're wrong. Aside from that, I don't understand your point. Like all these I hate whatever-band threads. Good for you, well done.

GoffBoy | 1 Jul '09, 12:00

• I have issues with you putting 'Girls Aloud' in the same sentence as that 'other' band.

You know, 'The Pussycat Dolls'. Shame on you Everett. Shame on you...

vamos | 1 Jul '09, 12:13

• laughable twaddle

Jack_il_biscotto | 1 Jul '09, 13:10

• there's a difference?

It's all T&A innit? [/safety wink]

Sigur Ros/Air/Moby/Doves/Elbow etc all those bands that have their music used on television are far too easy targets, it's the modern day equivalent of dissing Sting. Everett True needs to slay some sacred cows and generate some real controversy.

amyblue | 1 Jul '09, 13:13

• It appears the author has no soul

and doesn't really understand the function of music.

UnderYourBed | 1 Jul '09, 13:23

• christ, there's so many fucking pussies on this forum

well i suppose you are Sigur Ros fans, so it does kinda tie up. The guy doesn't like a band you like. The guy doesn't feel any emotion or meaning behind the music whilst you do. Big whoop. You could argue that such subjective things as emotional resonance shouldn't be framed as a fact piece, but music journalist in stating opinion as fact shocker etcetera. I happen to think that SR are flat, emotionless, irritating and dull, a worthless facsimile of proper music.. but hey, that's just me. Maybe you should all stop crying about what some guy on the internet thinks about a band you like and instead go cry at the "glacial beauty" of your favourite Icelandic knobjockeys

douchebag | 1 Jul '09, 13:39

o nobody is crying

and if anyone you're the pussy for slagging people off on an internet forum when you clearly wouldn't have the balls to do it in real life. Most people are saying the article is just lazy writing full of cliches and incorrect observations written in an attempt to stir up a bit of controversy.

Jack_il_biscotto | 1 Jul '09, 13:42

o oh, you mean

just like everyone above is doing to ET. Anyway, what use is the internet if not to insult people you're never going to see from the safety of your computer. You bellend. and if you can't see that the majority of people above are reacting because a band they liked has been dissed then you aint looking properly

douchebag | 1 Jul '09, 13:55

o massive difference

here's one example. ET is treating SR as if all their output was completely homogenous, as if his blanket comments could cover everything from their earliest work to their, massively different recent stuff, not to mention their less well known stuff like that ballet score their did.

Most of the comments on here aren't trying to make blanket statements about ET, they are focused on specific things that are cretinous about this one particular piece of writing.

sunbakedsnowcave | 1 Jul '09, 14:02

o are they a sacred cow?

i just thought they were a band that some people liked and some people didn't. And though i think it is a rubbish article, i think the general sentiment beneath it is fairly sound, or at least understandable. It's an opinion. One that he's hopelessly pimping out on here, but a valid opinion nonetheless

Also, "proper music" is another way of saying "good music". That possessing the qualities associated with "good music". Qualities that SR give a fairly poor representation of

douchebag | 1 Jul '09, 14:00

o why's he hopelessly pimping stuff here anyway?

i thought he was a big deal. or something. is it a big post-modern joke? i mean i don't see any other user round here who solely posts JAGs and nothing else

manbearpig | 1 Jul '09, 14:09

o () is lovely!

I'M OFFENDED

DanielKelly | 1 Jul '09, 15:26

o chill yr beans douchey

I don't give a monkey's toss about Sigur Ros one way or another but you'd have to be pretty blind not to find this a pretty cretinous piece of writing. In fact, I suspect it may be deliberatley cretinous in order to generate this very argument... I mean how many comments would a well thought out and balanced SR article get on this thread?

sunbakedsnowcave | 1 Jul '09, 13:46

• I don't think I understand what's going on here

I quite like some Sigur Rós though

DanielKelly | 1 Jul '09, 14:37

• naysaying the naysayers

Some of that article is brilliant as Sigur Ros are shockingly poor. I like the rockist comparisons, also.

pylon | 1 Jul '09, 15:03

o I'm surprised

at the dull, predictable reactions everyone always gives on these threads. Personally I enjoy ET's blogs for what they are (and they're pretty funny), but either way I thought some people might be open for a little vitriolic prose, esp with Swells' work on the agenda this week. Oh well, back to the Kurt and Courtney jokes, I guess. Take it away...

tom_edwards | 1 Jul '09, 17:19

• terrible article but I agree sigur ros are a bad band

I really dont understand how they became so sucessful, their first album showed promise but by the time of their 2nd they were kind of laughing stocks, post rock try hards, but then made it in america and everyone forgot, weird

ThingsThatFly | 1 Jul '09, 17:28

• Indefensible?

In what sick world are Sigur Ros considered "indefensible"? Is it from getting their music featured in kitschy television shows? Last time I checked Agaetis Byrjun and to a lesser extent () were considered classics.

Megadead2 | 2 Jul '09, 04:18

• They're not that hard to defend

See, the fact that it’s none of these things is why I love it. I love that it’s overblown and ridiculous, for the same reasons I love Muse. I love that it’s as cringey as a Miranda July short story about butterflies jizzing over grannies. The wishy-washiness, the utter naivety of it all is what gives it such wonder. Like Justice and HEALTH and The Hold Steady, they make modern day alt- stadium rock.

Yeah their gigs now feel like class//art//wanker tourism. Yes, the whole concept of Hopelandic is as bananas as Peter Gabriel and I don’t disagree that they verge on background muzak but, and this is a big wobbly but, I don’t see nothing wrong with their Eno-ish background beige-ness because often it’s ‘nice’ (Lydon’s least favourite word) for things to just drift away in the background, occasionally brushing your ear like a cat that’s just come in from the snow.

Maybe it’s because it’s gateway music, designed to captivate as many people wot-don’t-usually-like-that-kinda-fing as possible, that makes them so appealing, especially to cretinous fools like me trying to find an audience for the OTHER music I love. They’re a magazine editor’s creamiest of dreams because people, people who don’t usually get drawn left of centre of the road, actually (have the potential to) like them. It’s almost worth celebrating them, like Busted or Silverchair or The Spice Girls as less hateful-than-the-average fly traps.

Me, I like them but not as much as I did 8 years ago.

sean | 2 Jul '09, 09:48

o hopelandic isnt some alternate language though

its just gibberish, which makes perfect sense.

millionaire | 2 Jul '09, 10:22

• i'm down with these diatribes if they're funny.

or the words are stuck together with such acidic vitriol that the anger becomes quite balletic in its flow. but this is neither of those things. i'll make the lad a template so he can just c&p instead of writing another one out. 'hey...you know....(successful 'indie' band that no one has really been bothered to disuss the merits off for the last four years) they are so fucking shit? why doesn't everyone think they're so shit? i think they're shit? god i HATE them SO much. id much rather listen to (successful pop bad that would'nt raise a single eyebrow if someone admitted to thinking they were a good pop band with catchy songs)

god...how topsy turvy is that?...me rather listen to the pop band? IS THE SKY FALLING!!111!!'

what a bloody hero.



michael_w | 2 Jul '09, 10:39

o sigur ros are shit though

michael_w | 2 Jul '09, 10:41

• I do worry a bit

whether Everett really cares about some of these little blogs he posts links to... they're not really articles so much as short opinion pieces designed to get a click and a rise out of people. Following him on twitter and occasionally reading his blogs, he seems to be constantly fretting over whether enough people are reading them, like maybe he misses the rise more than he misses the writing. I accidentally stumbled across a Screaming Trees interview he did in the 90s and I thought "fuck, this is brilliant". I know he's isolated in Melbourne with a young family and a degree to be thinking of, but I wish a little of the old True would come back instead of just trolling for hits.

As for Sigur Ros - er, I dunno, good live, find it quite hard to care otherwise? I like that one about animals.

lukowski | 2 Jul '09, 14:34

o the whole thing is pretty bizarre.

i don't know much of his history, but i do get the feeling he's on a gigantic wind-up. which i'm probably feeding into by posting here

manbearpig | 2 Jul '09, 14:47