Find Me On:
He’ll apologize in the moment, and then later, he’ll let it slip that he was never sorry about it, just as he did with the Taylor Swift incident.
Different people have said that for a few years now. Stereogum doesn’t really care what the people who regularly read the site and comment want. These days, they mostly care about the people who only visit the site on the basis of there being a story or list featuring some popular artist.
It came out more recently, so it’s automatically better than, say, Marnie Stern.
History will not look at this site at all.
The Buke & Gase album was better than most of the stuff on the list.
So the Hebronix album is “rad” but not enough to make the list? Please. If that Yuck album made the list, the Hebronix album should be on it and at least several places higher.
What do you expect? He started life with a misspelled name.
Yeah, if she wasn’t offended that they continued on without her, she had to have been offended by what seemed like a deliberate move to say, “Oh, we’ll just get another Kim.” Maybe it was a coincidence, but you’d think that, at least in an effort to not appear passive-aggressive, Charles would have chosen someone with a different first name.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think the bigger story here is that Marilyn Manson joined Arcade Fire.
Call the doctor.
Hendrix himself thought enough of Sgt. Pepper to open one of his shows with the title track, so yeah…
I think, by now, if you are recruited to be Black Flag’s singer, you should just assume you will soon be fired. That’s just how it works. At some point, Ginn convinced himself that it doesn’t matter who is on vocals, that Black Flag is him. However, what he wasn’t counting on was that there is a considerable number of people who feel there is such a thing as a definitive Black Flag lineup and that they have very specific ideas about what that is.
Chubby Hubby is harder to find than some of the others these days, but if there is any within driving distance, you should make that your next one. It’s just ridiculously decadent.
In general, I have a lot of respect for people with conviction, but yeah, any line of thinking that prevents one from enjoying a pint of Ben & Jerry’s must be flawed.
There’s lots of pictures of him with that exact same facial hair. It’s not a stretch.
affected-adj. assumed artificially; unnatural; feigned: affected sophistication
It’s not that hard to understand. My objections to Arcade Fire have almost everything to do with their attitude, their ethos (or lack of one), which is grounded in superficiality. Yes, that affects the songs, but I’m not really objecting to their sound so much as what it represents. They became popular by exploiting a movement which was meant to be honest expression, uncompromising, raw art. Neutral Milk Hotel wearing old-timey clothes was honest expression; it was uncontrived. When Arcade Fire imitated them in that regard, it was not flattery or an act of genuine identification; it was simply part of a larger package they were selling people, a bow on a box of watered-down NMH-esque anthems, a product, the antithesis of the real art NMH created. Arcade Fire have long been identified as indie rock (which is why, many moons ago when this site only covered indie rock, they covered Arcade Fire), and if you don’t think so, you haven’t read much about them and must have no understanding of the history of rock and where certain sounds originated. Appearances communicate something about people, and now that Arcade Fire are being pretty forthright about how important appearances are to them, it reflects poorly on the musical movement with which they have long been identified, a movement that, for all its varying sonic approaches, has always been united by its approach to art and the dynamic between performer and audience. In its purest form, it was meant to erase the idea of the rock star on a pedestal–someone who is somehow privileged, better than everyone else. The punk/indie ethos celebrates individualism and an attitude of inclusiveness. A hipster worships exclusivity; in terms of appearance, what could be more exclusive than clothes that not everyone can afford? Also, requiring everyone to wear the same thing is not a celebration of individuality, as indie is supposed to be, but rather a celebration of homogeneity. In short, I resent Arcade Fire for, in terms of ethics, never really being true to their roots in the underground. They shrewdly exploited a cultural identity with which they were never ethically-aligned to become popular. If the general public thinks of indie rock, they think of Arcade Fire, who, ironically, are the antithesis of everything indie rock is supposed to be. Arcade Fire represent the triumph of the rock star/hipster ideal, and in the public consciousness, thanks to Arcade Fire and bands like them, the hipster and the indie rocker are one and the same.
My original point was that they and the media have identified them as being emblematic of the counterculture that was and is indie rock, which makes sense given their origins…but they happen to be horrible representatives of that identity since they often come off as pretentious, classist, egomaniacs who make precious, precious music from their great, gushing hearts that beat so much louder and powerfully than everyone else’s. A hipster is a person who is, by definition, inauthentic; that is a word that was meant to refer to someone who is more style than substance, who claims to enjoy certain things and who dresses a certain way only to impress some group of people, not because they actually like any of those things. Arcade Fire absolutely are hipsters in the classic sense; everything is affected. It is most unfortunate that they and others like them have been the indie bands to break through because indie rock has become synonymous with affectation, with pretentious fakery, the very sort of thing that punk, from which indie rock is descended, aimed to destroy. Naturally, the end result is that the popular perception of indie rock and everyone who likes it is that they are hipsters. I couldn’t be more genuine about loving the music I listen to, and neither could most of the bands who make music in those genres, but Arcade Fire’s group personality disorder, their materialism, egoism, and elitism (of which this latest stunt is a fine example), makes all that art by all those struggling bands making courageously abrasive and unique music and many people’s enjoyment of it seem invalid to the masses. Everyone who likes anything left of center is a caricature, a hipster. Great rock music is in many ways more accessible than it was in ’93, so why does it seem like people, by and large, are further than ever from appreciating it? There are lots of reasons, but it doesn’t help when one of your own goes out of their way to embarrass the family.
It’s in the term; “indie” comes from “independent”. Long, long, ago, certain genres of rock had to proceed independently of major-label/mainstream support, which makes them a counterculture. Everything that falls under the umbrella of indie rock can be traced back to the first wave of punk and its many offshoots. Arcade Fire have cited lots of underground bands as influences and were once decidedly underground themselves. That’s why it was kind of a big deal when they hit it big. No one expected them to make it because A LOT of bands with similar influences and sounds only garnered a small cult following (and the vast majority still do). Indie rock as a whole is still very much a counterculture because, well, if I walk up to a bunch of people and try to strike up a conversation with them about any number of indie-rock bands, unless I mention one of the relative handful of dancey or wussy, soft-rock indie bands who’ve squeaked by because they aren’t that challenging and/or don’t make casual music listeners (those people who say they love all kinds of music but can’t name anyone who isn’t in the top 40) uncomfortable, they probably will have no idea who I’m talking about. Just because the post-internet world gives people access to everything doesn’t mean that most people seek it out. Curiosity is correlated with intelligence. Newsflash: Most people are dumb and satisfied to remain ignorant, even of things that could very well enrich their lives. Not that long ago, there was an article on here about how even the “big-name” indie-rock bands just barely make ends meet. They are still a counterculture. They are not a dominant form of culture (though really, a counterculture can simply be a movement that challenges established ideas about what art or society can be, regardless of the level of commercial success, as many bands proved in the sixties). The reality is that the grunge era is still much closer to a true mainstream indie-rock revolution than anything that has happened recently.
I hate this band. God, I hate them. They are so full of themselves. They reinforce every negative stereotype people have about indie-rock listeners. The irony is that this band does not deserve to be associated with any sort of counterculture. They are just a bunch of rich white kids who want everyone to think and act like the worst rich white kids.
Oh, I think I do understand. As I’m sure you’re aware, many people have and continue to post comments that are “harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.” Few if any of these comments are ever policed. What Michael_ said about Ian Cohen is just the tip of the iceberg. The fact that his little comment was policed means that Stereogum is not really concerned with how people in general are affected by abusive comments but rather, with whether an abusive comment offends them or their associates personally. 99% of of abusive comments are not policed because these comments have a way of generating controversy and repeat clicks/views. Nothing about the way Stereogum handles abusive comments has anything to do with ethics, and pretending that it does is laughable.
Music writers make their living criticizing the work of public figures. The tradeoff is that in the process the writers themselves often become public figures. To deny this in the case of Ian Cohen is completely ridiculous. If Ian Cohen himself wants to take the coward’s way out and never address the unique and profound dislike that so many people who actually like and know about music have for him for plenty of concrete reasons on the grounds that he “is not a public figure,” so be it. However, for Scott to suddenly limit someone’s right to free speech (especially when there are almost no rules about what that person or anyone else can say on this site, no matter how offensive it may be) reeks of cronyism.
No, it’s very good and fits in perfectly, actually. How many other whale sounds can you spot on the album? Oh right, that’s half of the music. Only philistines skip tracks on loveless.
A lot of people have been insisting that, while they take different approaches, the Hebronix album and the new Yuck album are of equal quality. Having spent time with both now, I just don’t think it’s even a contest. The Hebronix album has way more emotional heft, and what’s crazy is that even though the Yuck album is decidedly guitar-centric, every moment of guitar-playing on the Hebronix album seems more beautiful, wild, and exciting. A lot of times I feel like the Yuck album wastes its guitars; it’s somehow too pretty and too soft too often in spite of the instrumentation and arrangements. The Yuck album is like a classic muscle car that someone put in neutral and shoved down a hill. The Hebronix album is like a junker that someone spent a ton of time and effort souping up without much concern for the car’s external structure. It is a weird amalgamation of seemingly incompatible parts, but it is propelled by its own unlikely, hidden power that is potent enough to make it dangerous. Rock should be dangerous, and the Yuck album is only cosmetically a rock album because there’s nothing burning inside of it.