Defining the enemy 2

This edit is from the follow-up thread on the Drowned In Sound message board, in response to a post on my PhD blog. They used my words without permission (and shorn of context), so I thought I'd return the favour.

Everett True / Sean / Engaging with a tastemaker critic
ehwhat 66 replies 14:15 July 3rd, 2009
Did this get linked? Am I slowing on the uptake?
The differences between a taste-maker critic and a critic

Reply

• Didn't read any of this

Who is Everett True? Just a blog 'personality'?

DanielKelly | 3 Jul '09, 14:17

o He introduced Courtney Love to Kurt Cobain

Zapsta | 3 Jul '09, 14:24

o He's sort of Tesco Value Steven Wells.

Used to be a big deal at the NME and Melody Maker several years ago.

theguywithnousername | 3 Jul '09, 14:53

• ...

Taste
Opinion
Personality
Writing skills
Trust
MISSING: Knowledge of the art form he's criticising.
That said: I have one Sigur Ros record. Frequently a track from that record will come on while I have Winamp's shuffle mode turned on (which itself, tends to be while I'm busy typing some shit or another). And the only way I know Sigur Ros has come on is generally about a minute into the track, when I find myself becoming really fucking bored but not knowing why...
...so I can relate.

Stealthy | 3 Jul '09, 14:37

• and of course, the instigator of all this

has pissed off until he has something else to pimp on the boards.

manbearpig | 3 Jul '09, 16:28

• Maybe he's analysing our responses this very minute...

Internet journalism 2.dry

splitterwill | 3 Jul '09, 16:35

• It's a bit much for him to claim he's been 'engaging' anyone in that thread

there's two posts made by him in the whole thing, both just pimping his blog again.
Former high-profile journo engages in a bit of painfully obvious trolling in a desperate bid for hits and 'controversy' (about Sigur Ros ffs, what next, "Waitrose: Ooh, it's for posh people"?), gets widely slated for it, writes pissy response.

eschaton | 3 Jul '09, 15:05

• I was just confused by it

It was called 'Defending the Indefensible' yet he just seemed to attack a very easily attacked band. I think his thesaurus was on INVERTO MODE the day he came up with the title.
Either that or there is now 2.0 yolk all over my face.

DanielKelly | 3 Jul '09, 15:22 | Reply

• so as to throw my two pence in, and not just plonk it up there

I don't read much music criticism and much prefer to gauge opinion on messageboards. I'm sure they played a big part back in the day but just can't get my head around how, post-2.0, any 'officially sanctioned' opinion can be worthwhile...I mean I can't help seeing a big difference between writing skill and taste, the former providing some enjoyable, occasionally even thought-provoking reading, but once passed through the "journo-writing-about-journalism"-filter, the magnitude of this always seems to get blown way out of proportion.
If you're going to entertain your readership, push bands you love, make someone think once in a while then great, but, only speaking for myself, I can't see anyone giving two shits and a fuck about any one journalist's attempts to steer their readers collective consciousness towards some movement / band or another, certainly doesn't really warrant such insistant introspection and grasping at some vain title that, really, outside of journos themselves anyone cares about.
^Does this make any sense?^

ehwhat | 3 Jul '09, 15:16

• If you can link to

an off-site article on a forum by posting a new thread about it, and get positive replies/comments on what you've written, then well done. You are an excellent writer.
Because that's how it is with internet stuff. There is so much content out there that every wasted click we make pisses us off. We know when you're trying to increase your ad views by linking to the article rather than copying and pasting it for our benefit. We know that our clicks put money in your pocket. And that's fine, but you'd better bloody make sure that what you've written is interesting, and more worthwhile than a 'slaying the sacred cow'-type piece on a band who most people have only lukewarm simmerings over anyway. Ah yes, those legions of rabid Sigur Ros fans. If you can't write something amazing enough to get our attention - which can happen, because there have been plenty of well-received posts containing nothing but a link to a blog (he he XDD) - if not, then don't call us, we'll call you.

jonny_rat | 3 Jul '09, 16:50

• 2

Imagine if people went into this depth of discussion when talking about colours or smells they didn't like.

wrightylew | 3 Jul '09, 17:13

• My 2 thoughts (not that anyone care)

1. The article about Sigur Ros certainly didn't look like it was trying to spakle a discussion but instead like it was giving some sort of universal truth. Which is probably why he got so much negative comments instead of well-argued replies : why trying to argue with someone talking like God.

2. Yes, there always was negative threads on DiS and as they're usually about famous bands, they naturally get much more hits than positive threads about unknown bands. As a regular users of the music boards for years, I think it's much less negative than it was a couple of years ago (remember threads about Bloc Party/Editors...) but, on the other hand, threads about new/unknown bands seem to be far less in numbers and to get less and less replies (positive or negative, a negative reply is at least the proof someone care enough to give a listen).

lyle | 3 Jul '09, 17:22 | Reply

• perhaps i misunderstand the point of this

but aren't steven wells and charlie brooker both best known for their cynical views? i find it a bit odd that they're both name-checked here.

shadyadie | 4 Jul '09, 02:07