Least Favorite Piece of Music Writing So Far in 2002...

Every article about Doves that calls them the next Radiohead. That's just lazy.

Oh, that annoys me a lot. Mostly because Radiohead = really good while Doves = just passable.

The Pitchfork review for Andrew WK that greeted me Monday.

The splash page said "SHIT." in big happy letters.

Then there was a review.

It would have been my favourite if it just said "SHIT."

Yes, I second Ryan Pitchfork's anti-WK screed. Everything I hate about Pitchfork, music writers, the indie mentality, and semantics, all rolled into one pile of steaming hot doo.

Now if only that article and WK would cancel each other out entirely. I'd be happy! ;-)

That AWK review is baffling. "I really liked the album and then I suddenly realized, it was corporate pop!" Someone needs to write an inverse review of that style. "It has a pleasant acoustic ambience. And the vocals... such sadness, such emoti -- Oh My God! It's Emo! Burn it! Burn them all!"

I liked the unintentional put-down of Brent D though. I mean, what kind of 'culture addict' looks for same in 'British music rags'!????

Scott Seward on El-P and pals. "El-P's rhymes are wack. Here are some of my rhymes that are not wack, but dope!" Jesus. Way to make Ethan sound like fuckin' DJ Spooky there, dork.

(That doesn't sound like a bad thing, but it is)

I loved that Seward review! It read like Kogan on the Jay-Z/Nas thread.

Yeah, that Seward piece is great - he totally nails El-P's delivery, and the rhymes are oddly great in themselves (the one where he rhymes Britney Spears, arrears, leers and sneers is my favourite).

Yeah, too bad he completely trashes a great record in a smarmy, condescending fashion.

You're 100% Nate but somehow I can't bring myself to be annoyed.

Of course I mean 100% correct.

Don't worry about that, Tim. Most people choose not to bring themselves to be annoyed as quickly as I can.

Ghita/Lolita/Velveeta/Cheetah is better, I think.

Jim DeRogatis on Eminem (representing far too many awful Salon articles to mention), the Voice's descents into Pitchfork territory, that whole David Plotz-David Wild Breakfast Table on Slate. The Onion's "Record Store Clerks Killed at Yo La Tengo concert" thing was really lame also (unlike their "Watch Out Corporate America - Here Come's My Pirate Radio Station!")

Ha! That Andrew WK review is great. Ryan Schreiber loves the album as much as I do and is so ashamed he gives it a 0.6! It's an interesting look into the mental struggles that I think face music fans more than they'd like to admit. He effectively explains the ideological challenge this album poses to him - and ideology wins over aesthetic pleasure in this case! "Oooh, it's fun, like that's an excuse." Will the battle ever end for the indie martyr? And what is "real rock" if not Def Leppard? The Promise Ring?? At what point did mainstream rock stop being the real thing? Was Led Zeppelin a real rock band or would Ryan Schreiber see more authentic rock-ness in Henry Cow or Van der Graaf Generator or someone? Were the Rolling Stones real rock artists? Chuck Berry?

Brent Dicrescenzo's Tool review (which I think was actually from last year but anyway), on the other hand, is just indefensible. What is he even trying to say with the second half of that review? Tool suck because they appeal to young boys who care about geeky things like math and instrumental technique? Did it ever occur to him that his parody is more smug, elitist, and narrow-minded than the caricature of a Tool fan he set up? Or that he actually describes why this could be a great album to someone who doesn't share his taste in rock music? Is it just taken for granted at Pitchfork that Weezer or Sleater-Kinney are more significant and legitimate artists than classic rock radio staples like Yes or Queensryche? And has Dicrescenzo even heard the albums he's referencing? Does anyone really think Tool are reminiscent of the mellotrons, pastoral classical-style fingerpicking, and church-choir harmonies on The Yes Album? Would he be willing to point out the Peter Gabriel influence in Maynard Keenan's vocals or lyrics?

The AWK review on Pitchfork was garbage. The problem is, I think Pitchfork people are inclined to either hate it because it's not some mediocre indie-trash album recorded in someone's bedroom, or they'll love it because of hipster irony.

I love that album with a straight face. Yes, it might be cheesy, but cheesiness itself is not a good reason to like something.

I think the real problem with the review is that he seemed unable to accept that one could love *or* hate the end results on face value.

I once said I thought Pitchfork staffers only take safe shots; they're only comfortable trashing what's way above - or way below - their radar. Somehow, bland, flavorless twang rock is a 5.0-7.5, but amazingly-produced, explosive records like Andrew W.K.'s garner 0.6's.

Sure, the latter falls into the full-of-sound-and-fury-signifying- nothing category - as do other notable 0.x-rated records like NYC Ghosts And Flowers and Zaireeka, but shit like Imperial Teen gets a 7.7.

It's better to dare greatness and fail than end up another Acetone. Original ideas, efforts that challenge critics on what is or isn't cool/now/hip are scoffed at more readily than the dime-a-dozen "indie rock" hacks 'round PFork way. The canned salvation army look 90% these twentysomething flakes are shucking is a thousand times more grating on my eyes than Andrew W.K.'s music could ever be on my ears.

That said, I'm still among the site's biggest cheerleaders.

Most of the stuff I've written so far this year... the Melys compilation probably takes the biscuit, though, ending as it did 'On this evidence, you wouldn't want to fuck with them.' I'm usually quite good at swearing when not strictly necessary, but even as that left my fingers I thought to myself, "You utter wally." (I am student journalist. Obv.)

Wow, I just realized just how sexual Ryan's relationship with the WK album actually is. (I will now proceed to take several lines out of context in order to prove my point.)

1. The whole "spit or swallow" thing

2. "And then you wake up the next morning, hazy-headed and groggy, humiliated by the preceding night's incidents..." - watch out Ryan, you might've caught a viscious case of Gono-ROCK-a from that slutty record! *ducks*

3. "This music is evil in its purest form, wafting through air, waiting to possess every decent person in the entire room until they're flat on their backs in bed, wrists tied to the headboard..." - damn Ryan, now that's just *kinky*. WK's brand of rock is more straight-up bang-bang missionary pumping, I'd say.

And, as Charlie asked on another board, just what *is* this "substance" Ryan speaks of anyway?

Not to mention the broader context of Ryan not wanting to give up his pop cherry. If anyone's heard Mya's "The Best Of Me", they'll know it describes Ryan's dilemma perfectly.

But how can you not give up what you've already lost? This is assuming Ryan was like the rest of us and just liked the pretty pop sounds he heard from passing radios and the like when he was single-digit-aged. Or am I drawing some bad analogies here?

Anything by Amy Phillips or Nick Catucci for the Village Voice this year. Check out Amy Philips review online of the new Sonic Youth album. It's exactly what I used to write in my college publication. And I would write it on no sleep in under an hour. Hopefully that's her excuse. How nice it is for her to use the Village Voice as her college paper. Too Dear Diary-ish and all about her. Nick Catucci just needs to start writing for JANE and be done with it.

Jim D-R's review of Eminem takes the prize for worst review this year, easy.

I thought that Andrew WK review was awesome, but had one glaring error - should've been a 9.6 rating instead of a 0.6. The review would have made more sense that way I think

"...Perhaps it was the futuristic artwork reminiscent of a techno rave flyer that belies the intelligent and accessible collection of tracks that lay ahead... a whole smorgasbord of old movie samples, soulful vocalists and world-sounds, sequencing them over the top of programmed beats and electronic effects with some deep guitar grooves and crunchy chords. ... Trapazoid has an amazing ability to patchwork sounds together and this is evident in reading the CD insert where he confesses to recording the heart-beat of his unborn baby daughter and later sampling the rhythm track titled Organ... a variety of different styles, sometimes it's a dreamy, chill-out number, other times a funky, get-up-and-groove track that gets your foot tapping"

I should mention that the above actually made it into print in the usually-quite-decent Beat Magazine which Tim writes for. I don't want to embarrass the writer by mentioning her name.

Heh - I saw that album review's rating and thought "no, I better not read it."

by far and away the worst piece of music journalism i have encountered thus far in 2002 (or ever) has been Louise Wener's (yes, LOUISE WENER) awfulawfulawful recount of her days fronting top beat combo Sleeper. it read like a 15 year old's first attempt to get published in NME and even adopted the music press's own fickle mid- 90s readings of her peers, presumably in an effort to attach a posthumous 'credibility' to Sleeper and attempt to distance them from the Britpop also-rans.

the excerpt from her book linked to by Popbitch was also pretty hideous.

Least favorite: almost everything "published" in Pitchfork. Pitchfork would be completely and totally irrelevant to anything if it required payment. The writing is in dire need of an editor, and the style--if you can call it that--is predictably exhibitionist.

The review of Murray Street in VV this week was way below the standards of the Voice. And hardly as contrarian as it thought it was.

Bad music writing these days almost always contains an indulgent exhibitionist element: basically, if I see the first person perspective in a review, I know that the review is going to be much more concerned about the writer than the record. Shame on all you dumbass writers who think we care so much about your life.

spot the hilarious logical blooper in the final paragaph of don's post, foax

--The review of Murray Street in VV this week was way below the standards of the Voice. And hardly as contrarian as it thought it was.--

The tone of it -- the cutesy-perky-teeny-pleadingness of it -- really put me off. Plus, that whole "Sonic Youth should break up cuz *I* think they suck" philosophy, even if it's meant as tongue-in-cheek, is so fucking juvenile and is no way to go about writing rock criticism. All she does by betraying what a lameass, Generation Sassy fangirl she used to be is to make herself look exactly like the type of person I'm sure she thinks she hates.

--Bad music writing these days almost always contains an indulgent exhibitionist element: basically, if I see the first person perspective in a review, I know that the review is going to be much more concerned about the writer than the record. Shame on all you dumbass writers who think we care so much about your life.--

I kinda disagree with that. I see nothing inherently wrong with a writer sharing her personal relationship with the music -- reviews that are simply rundowns of the track listing and laundry lists of good and bad points are incredibly boring, and say nothing of why I should trust or even believe the person writing the piece. It's all in finding the delicate balance -- I applaud writers who have the balls to experiment and break from the formula, and the fact that they're TRYING somewhat alleviates the wretchedness of their end result. But these things have to be even-handed: the personal has to be accompanied by the formal, something that shows me you know your stuff and you can write about it like a pro and not a fucking college student.

(And for the record, I LOVE Murray Street.)

hey mark -- the logic "blooper" was intentional.

it's fine for a writer to divulge their personal experience with the music--criticism is hardly immune from relying on personal taste or opinion--but most hacks go way beyond that.

which reminds me: anyone around here remember the review of a Rolling Stones album in SPIN about ten years ago by some moron who said the first time she heard a Stones song was when she heard "Exile On Main Street" by Pussy Galore?

What, are you saying that couldn't have been the case?

I don't care for first person reviews, but also don't think there are that many on Pitchfork. A handful of the writers there use that style, and I think it dominated for a short time; the good ones don't, though, and the writers who are around these days don't seem to use it much. What I like even less, though, is the Village Voice, Dennis Miller-style "let me confuse you with bizarre references and thrice hyphenated adjectives" approach. There's a point at which "elegance" shifts into useless, pedantic nonsense. A review should be entertaining and get a point across, but it does neither if you can't even read it.

true, in Pitchfork they do not use all that many first person reviews. But it's still too much for my taste, and for the record, there are few uh, records, that merit 700 words or whatever the dudes at Pitchfork like to churn out.

of course, this does not explain why on earth I monitor their comings and goings. they must be doing something right.

i! i! i-i-i! ichabod is itchy and SO AM I!!