smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Eb <ElBroome@earthlink.net> |
| Subject | Re: Another dogpile |
| Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:42:08 -0800 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (6.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
>Bill Holmes:
> > I'm not the one who gets upset when their opinions aren't lauded
>or their favorite albums aren't championed by a stampede of replies.
Lordy. I add one peripheral aside that *one* album I like a lot seems
underrated in the year-end polls, and look at all the hyperbolic
hoopla. Amazing.
>(don't want to have you misinterpret "wallow" again)
Right, because words like "wallow" and "sludge" don't *really* have
negative connotations.
>I really hope your original point for all of this wasn't that the Village
>Voice Poll is cool and representative of a wide bandwidth of popular culture
>and the Audities poll is skewed towards an insular pop community that holds
>a certain list of releases in disproportionate high regard.
Well, the second goes without saying, right? Actually, the bulk of my
point (and subsequent "controversy") had *nothing* to do with the
Village Voice. It was about the Circle of Friends poll. Remember now?
=============
>John, still swingin':
>Speaking of childhood hard-ons, what exactly is up with this
>obsession/fascination you have with David Bash, Eb? You never seem to miss a
>chance to jab unnecessarily at him, IPO, etc. Whatsamatter?
I skip *abundant* chances to jab at him (here, too), and in fact,
can't even recall the last time I mentioned his name. Heck, I didn't
even mention his full name in the previous post. And what was the
jab? Describing his hat as "oversized"? Ouchies!
You don't miss many chances to jab either, homeboy. Currently, you're
jabbing me for mentioning that I encountered DB in a record store?
Whew.
=============
>Michael Bennett pedestal'ed:
>So Eb, when you continue on your mission of righteousness, what
>offends me most is simply that you don't display nearly enough
>musical knowledge for your extremely strong opinions to have any
>value.
The operative word being "display." You have little idea about how
much musical knowledge I have -- only an idea about my knowledge of
DIY-level retro-pop (which isn't exactly a required field of study).
I don't "display" much of my knowledge, partly because I'm not
interested in being a full Audities participant and partly because
most of my current tastes seem off-topic. I had a great time at an
Amy Correia show, last night. Is this relevant? Does anyone care? Of
course not. No reason why they should, in this context. Why would I
post about this?
I'm not going to start enumerating how many albums I've heard/hoarded
or whatever other qualifications might carry weight with you, because
such puffery inevitably looks pathetic and anal. I have respect for
your musical knowledge, but I'm not going to debase myself by trying
to woo your reciprocation.
>Moreover, you share with a lot of folks who are more concerned about
>cred than valuing the experience that music provides, you want to
>place everything in boxes, in a manner that is equivalent, though
>different, from what you accuse Auditeers of doing.
That sentence was almost parseable. Almost. You also don't have much
basis to make conclusions about my interest in "cred," my interest in
"boxes" or my immersion in the "experience." I simply don't post
enough. I like plenty of unhip, unfashionable music, and am not shy
to say so. I don't criticize whatever IPO bands because they don't
have cred -- I criticize them because their shallow, formulaic
sappiness is painful to endure. But yes, when someone protests that
the Cherry Gumdrop Bunnypoo Gang is one of the best bands on Earth,
it's hard to resist pointing out the handful of people who are likely
to share that view. Meanwhile, it's also hard to resist mentioning
all the Auditeers who love to grasp for "cred" by superficially
flailing at the current top-40 world -- this has never been one of my
tactics. I'll leave that to B. Segarini and the like.
>The artists on these small labels take varying amounts of talent and
>inspiration and originality. And I don't give a damn what genre it
>is, some folks have the right amounts of these things to come up
>with fantastic records. It seems to me that you've already
>determined, however, that this is impossible.
This is what folks like to call a straw-man argument. I've tried.
I've sampled a good bit of the IPO-level stuff. I'm open to hearing
something which floors me, but I have yet to hear anything from that
microworld which remotely approaches "fantastic." I'd call the
Wondermints' Bali album "good." I'd call the new Kristian Hoffman
album "good." That's about the highest praise I can offer. Generally,
my favored Beatley pop attracts a less narrow audience, because it
includes at least *some* resonances of the modern world. And, sure,
plenty of those acts don't move beyond the small clubs, but at least
they can generate some non-fanzine press, grab some college-radio
play, and sustain a tour without vampiring on five other bands with
an identical sound.
I enjoy plenty of music on small labels (lately, I've been enjoying
the Long Winters CD on Barsuk, the Tall Dwarfs CD on Carrot Top and
the Great Lakes CD on Orange Twin), but not much music on
IPO-pandering boutique labels. The range of that stuff is remarkably
limited and predictable, and I'm not much interested. Joining the
list and researching its fixations has only made me more aware of
this. Generally, the most common variable seems to be simply whether
the band chooses to add a "psychedelic" element or not. Or maybe it
occasionally steers more toward Brian Wilson than the Beatles. Whee.
I could talk about how I've cringed while sampling various
near-interchangeable Not Lame MP3s of acclaimed Audities faves, but
this would just cause more tedious turmoil.
==================
>Bryan snarked:
>Oh, yeah, and Eb, when did you say you were leaving the list?
Well, I've been inching toward the exit door for weeks, and planned
to leave once the Pazz & Jop was sorted out. But I dunno...since
peripherally saying so in public, I've received some unexpected
emails from less histrionic subscribers (lurkers, naturally) which
tempt me to stay. So, now I'm feeling torn again. Maybe the list
needs some yang to balance all the cheerleaders' yin, and the other
yangers are too resigned to bother speaking up. We'll see. But yeah,
doesn't it just *suck* when the debates get stronger than deciding
whether Squeeze or XTC is a little bit better?
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.