All of the following is taken from responses to a link on Stevie Chick's Facebook page, linking to my previous blog entry on the mighty Pens. (If you're one of the participants and object to your words being appropriated here, please let me know.)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
ET Recommends - 32: Pens (the immediate fallout)
All of the following is taken from responses to a link on Stevie Chick's Facebook page, linking to my previous blog entry on the mighty Pens. (If you're one of the participants and object to your words being appropriated here, please let me know.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'but hey, that's what you get when even the band name is a dick joke'
ReplyDelete'Pens', a penis joke? sounds like poor old zach might feel a bit insecure in a stationary shop.
and there touring with the slits next month! that'll get him even more excited.
its quite childish that zach would assume 'pens' is a penis joke. if he knows that they've done artwork for Wavves, is it not more likely the name has something to do with illustration?
Whatever argument the bitchfork idiot was positing revolves around how one defines playing, an instrument, badly and well. I can't "play" guitar. I can't "sing" either. But I have always found my guitar, my voice and my sharp tongue to be very effective instruments for terrorizing douche bags like that. Playing badly or well doesn't interest me. I love 3 songs on the Pens record. That's about average for me whether were talking the stones or the fall.
ReplyDeleteET, as you stated in your initial post, I think the heart of the matter is how (or why) such a weak review made it through PF's editorial staff to publication. That's still the story for my money.
ReplyDeleteDescribing technical ability and how it’s applied would be great criticism if there was any meaningful way to do it. I can’t do it. No one wants to read musicology in a record review anyway?
Almost all the time, that sort of commentary is completely inane. What that writer said about Pens being unable to play is about as helpful to the reader as saying ‘This band has hair.’ So it’s inclusion, really is about being a wink-wink sexist douche bag. Or just a fucking dumb kid/man-child who hasn't been schooled in music history (or life) and thus has no place criticising anything.
Last time I checked, PF held itself in much higher regard than that.
I don't know. Do they hold themselves in higher regard than that?
ReplyDeleteThe trap for any magazine/website that has now been going as long as Pitchfork has, and is so highly regarded, is that it starts to believe its own praise. And starts believing it's above the criteria that applies to everyone else.
Pitchfork has long been a commercial concern. There's nothing wrong with that, of course - except, a) it presents itself differently to its audience (and who can blame them?) and b) it's clearly starting to impact upon editorial policy.
Simply: when it started, Pitchfork was an alternative to the establishment. Now it is the establishment. And the establishment is ALWAYS worth bringing down.
...or, at the very least, close examination.
ReplyDeletesaw them at the Cargo with Times New Viking and Male Bonding last night and loved all three of them. pound for pound my favourite show of the year
ReplyDeleteHey Everett,
ReplyDeleteDon't forget you always used to call Help She Can't Swim "Help She Can't Sing".
Best,
G