@321go: There you go again, doing exactly what I just called you on: not contributing anything to the conversation and instead just making wild, untrue assumptions about me, a person who you've probably never met. I've never worked for Pitchfork. Also, I'm in my mid-twenties. Not very old at all.
I know my words won't have any effect on Delta Rae, that's not my intention. This is a conversation that's only tangentially about the band, themselves. I think they're horrible, but what we're really discussing here is integrity in music, music journalism, and the music business as a whole.
Scathing: yes. Bitter: maybe a little. Jealous: dead wrong. I'm not jealous, I'm disappointed that the music industry has created a space for vacuous, banal music at the forefront of media attention, disappointed that people buy into that, and disappointed that there are bands who will cater to those audiences to make money.
Frankly, I'm kind of astounded that you'd decide to shove yourself into a conversation which you don't really seem to understand, and to which you provenly have nothing to contribute. What is YOUR goal here? To call everyone who doesn't like Delta Rae "stupid" without actually reading anything they're saying? I know my posts have been long, but that's because this is an extremely complicated issue. There's no way to sum it up on a bumper sticker, in a paragraph, or even in a comment thread. Volumes could be written on these subjects, and all you seem to have to say is that I'm "boring" and "bloviating"; the former speaking to the fact that you really have no place in an actual discussion about music and the complexity of the music industry, and the latter proving that you know how to access an internet thesaurus.
Also, @ruffels, I can't remember the last time I heard of a "hillbilly numskull" with a college degree arguing the notion that music should challenge its listener's expectations and comfort zones, as well as contribute something creative and new to its audience.
Basically, this whole thread has gone like this:
There are a few people high-fiving Grayson Currin for sticking it to a shitty band that is trying to use the idea of our local music scene in this area as a marketing tool. At the very least, these posts tend to actually further the criticisms of the band that were made in Grayson's review, as well as call out the music and music media industries for championing bland music to make money.
Then there are a few people who make a legitimate point, that Currin was really hard on this band, and maybe it wasn't entirely called-for. While I disagree with them, I understand their position. These posts have been civil, mostly well-worded, and a good contribution to the discussion.
Then there are a few OTHER people who are championing Delta Rae and have absolutely nothing in their defense except major music media and calling everyone else dumb. Trust me, that makes you all sound very smart and eloquent, and paints a delightful picture of Delta Rae fans.
@ruffels: Currin is hardly a "failed loser". He's the editor of the Indy's music section and writes for websites like Pitchfork Media.
@321go: You want the bands I champion to rot in my "decrepit basement"? Tell that to bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, et cetera. I never said that music sucks if people listen to it, I said that popular music now is often manufactured to have a base-level appeal and not challenge its listeners. Distinct difference.
@321go: You seem pretty keen on the idea that I'm stupid. I don't like saying things like this (because really it's pretty tacky, but you're not leaving me a whole lot of room for decency), but my level of education, as well as general testing scores throughout my academic career, beg to differ.
So does the fact that I'm actually writing well-worded, albeit lengthy, arguments and analyses in favor of Grayson's review. You have succeeded in doing virtually nothing except trying to invalidate my opinion by saying that I'm stupid, then telling me to stop talking. Note that you didn't somehow prove or even really argue that I'm stupid, you just said it.
I misspoke when I said that Rolling Stone hasn't been consistently relevant. They are still relevant, but usually only to fans of pop and rock music superstars. My meaning was that Rolling Stone bears virtually no relevance to the music underground, wherein music is more often championed for its artistic qualities than its ability to sell (read: how much it caters to the lowest common denominator).
MTV, VH1, and Billboard are all in the exact same boat as Rolling Stone. They cover music that sells because that's what will sell their magazine. Seeking out artists that challenge people's expectations isn't profitable for those magazines, because fewer people are going to pick up a Rolling Stone that has a band on the cover that they don't know or care about, and it doesn't take much research to understand that people don't often listen to music that challenges their comfort. How many death metal or avant-garde noise albums have you seen on the top 40 in the past 10 years? And on the same line of thought, how many people are going to watch MTV (a channel on which I haven't actually seen a music video since 2003) or VH1 if they're showing videos of music that doesn't appeal to the largest possible crowd?
Also, If you had bothered to read, I've already given my two cents on Billboard. They called Nickelback the best band from 2000 through 2009. Do you really think that's credible, legitimate music journalism?
You really seem to like the word "bloviate". You must have flipped through a thesaurus lately.
@321go: I'm done being nice to you if all you want to do is make annoying holier than thou statements about how youve got Rolling Stone, a magazine that hasnt been consistently relevant since the 1970s, on your side.
You come off as being absolutely juvenile. It's people like you who make certain that unchallenging cookie-cutter bullshit will forever top the charts.
@321go: I'm not an alter-ego of Grayson Currin, I just agree with him. I don't know where you gathered that I'm simple-minded from, so I'll just leave that one alone. I wouldn't call myself jealous, either. Frankly, I would feel much more satisfied if I made music that I felt good about and never saw a glimpse or recognition for it than write generic, uncreative pop swill that only borrows enough of the "southern" and "indie rock" tropes to try to attract customers.
I'm an "embarrassment to (you) all,"? Explain that one to me. And, actually, explain why I'm simple-minded, too. I'm interested to hear that one.
Remember that last post I made to blshtcaller about how the review he posted by Christina Fuentes didn't actually say anything actually substantive about Delta Rae's music? You just did the exact same thing again, and twice in a row. You posted two reviews that use semiobscure terms (and one even sports a condescending attitude) but don't actually say anything weighty about this band. And then, to boot, you felt the need to personally insult me even though you have absolutely no idea who I am, presumably because I'm backing up a review that's tearing a band you like to shreds.
You know the saddest thing about John Pfeiffer's statement that, "This isn’t some label fabrication based on trend predictions or marketing gimmicks..."? Technically he's right, but the album was written by six people who were trying to emulate the sound that comes from records that ARE "label fabrications based on trend predictions and marketing gimmicks." It didn't even take a major label to do that. We have a band in our own backyard that's going for that angle.
Now look, there's no need for name-calling. If you want to have a real discussion on the merits and faults of Delta Rae's music, let's do it. That's what I'm here for. Don't just copy and paste other people's reviews, write your own. If you're really so pissed off at Grayson and you really think that anyone can review music professionally, go for it. I'm not sitting around calling you "simple-minded" for lack of a better defense, and I expect the same courtesy in return.
Also, @blshtcaller, I just thought of something. There is no such thing as an "objective opinion". You can make an objective analysis of a subject, but your analysis becomes subjective when it is SUBJECT to your opinion. Objectivity and opinion are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, if this review was written with the same intensity on the positive side, you wouldn't be complaining even though that would clearly break from your desire for all record reviews to be objective. Why's that?
@blshtcaller: Good to see you actually have an interest in having a reasonable, academic discussion. That's always nice.
Ignoring your "he who is the most snide is clearly the most correct approach," I actually said quite a bit. I addressed everything you had to say in your last post. If you don't have a real rebuttal, why even post?
Like I said in my first post (if you bothered to read it) was that I have, indeed, heard Delta Rae. I've even seen them play live due to circumstances beyond my control. Why would I write eight paragraphs worth of "nothing" about a band I haven't even heard? Even if I hadn't heard them before this review, I would've at least checked them out after the fact.
Your statement that the album is "VERY good" bears virtually no weight. Back that opinion up with something besides a tidbit from a Rolling Stone review. And yes, Fuentes writes for Billboard Magazine. That's the magazine that named Nickelback the best band of the naughts (2000-2009). Keep that in mind.
If you want to look at this from another angle: consider the two reviews, Grayson's review and the one from Rolling Stone, in contrast to one another. The former is an eloquently-written page of actual criticism and comparison to other music by someone who has clearly done his homework. He even tied the band's clearly shitty attitude about themselves from their press release into the review to prove his theory about them. And the latter is a protracted paragraph with no actual weighty commentary on the band. The deepest they go is to call them "unique" and say they have "rich four-part harmonies" and an energetic live show (which has nothing to do with the merits of their music, especially on record).
And, again, written by someone who works for the publication that called Nickelback the BEST BAND FROM 2000-2009.
Basically that tells me that this band is gonna do great among the kinds of folks who love Nickelback. Put bluntly, that means it'll be a total hit with people who level absolutely no criticism at the music they listen to and have the least discerning ears on the planet.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation