I was actually hoping to open a dialog with the author but seems like that's not going to happen. There is a degree of anger in the comments section, but the discussion for the most part has been rather one-sided. Anyway, I'm glad this song has opened up a discussion that normally isn't brought up in music criticism.
There is debate in the feminist world about whether men can be feminists or are they feminist allies. I consider myself a feminist and I don't think that using that term will ever make me feel what a woman feels being subverted or oppressed. It won't wipe away my privilege, but I don't think it is supposed to. To me it signifies that my aims are wrapped up in the same issues as many females who self-identify as feminist. Again, it doesn't mean I am the same as them, but no two feminists are alike anyway.
I think you can look at that interview with Reza Aslan about being a Muslim discussing Christianity. Part of scholarship is discussing things that aren't just about who you are. As a Jew, I don't expect every article written about Jewish works and addressing Jewish themes to be written by Jews. But at the same time, nobody needs to explain to me that Jews are being denigrated. I think the author was upset by the tone of the song itself, not that a man tried to address it. Part of what confused me is the song itself; I'm not exactly sure who the audience is for that song.
My hope when I write a song with feminist themes is not to explain anything to anyone so much as to highlight something I care about. I am a little confused about the argument this article is making; I'm assuming you are not making the argument that all songs dealing with gender and feminist issues written by men are an attempt to usurp the voices of women. I'm sorry if I come off as ignorant, but I am asking for a little more clarity from the author.
Savages are anything but lazy. I have never seen them in a color press photo, nor have they smiled in one. Their aesthetic is minimal and for me it calls into question what a band's visual aesthetic has to do with their music. Yes, the design is crowded, I'm not going to pretend I know why, but it certainly seems to me to be niggling.
I am disturbed a little by the sentence that opens this article. I think Yeezus was just entitled whining by a rich brat with brittle beats and no real substance. It was a hissy fit set to acid squelches. And I'm not trying to be contrary to get a rise out of people, though I welcome your down votes.
I like that this list makes more recognition of black artists who've shaped popular music than some other lists (rhymes with bowling grown). But I have a question:
If we're going back to greatest albums SINCE ALBUMS EXISTED: where is the jazz? I don't even need to throw out my favorites; I'd be willing to accept Kind of Blue or A Love Supreme as the only token jazz entries. Instead, there's nothing.
I remember driving home from a friend's house when Mumford and Sons came on the "alternative" radio station I had on. This was the first time I had heard "Little Lion Man," and I didn't know what Mumford and Sons was, but I remember an almost sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. I felt, at the time, that this was folk that was poised to make a huge splash in the "alternative" scene and I certainly recognized their craftsmanship. On the other hand, it did feel like it was formulated to pull my heartstrings in a certain way that made me uncomfortable. I guess the best songs, movies and literature make you feel things without the underpinnings becoming too visible. Mumford, to my ears, felt phony and I'm not sure I could overcome that feeling even with repeated listens. And I don't mean to suggest that Mumford is phony; every musician who's ever written a sad song wants other people to feel how sad it is, some of them are more successful than others. Mumford's bombast machine might just be too well-oiled for me to ever enjoy it.
I would like to know whose job it is to determine what font size each band is allocated.
(Imagine as a walk-and-talk meeting a la The West Wing.)
Graphic designer: "Dino Jr.? Tier 4."
Another guy: "With OMD?"
Graphic designer: "Yes. Right next to Paul Oakenfold."
I think that lists benefit from being separated like this; the unspoken rule of other lists is something like this: Source is going to release a list about hip-hop, Decibel a list about metal and Rolling Stone a list about mostly genial rock. Even though music blogs and websites are increasingly more eclectic than ever, experimental and fringe music is overlooked due to the nature of the lists themselves (often because of this eclecticism, many mainstream genres may seem underrepresented). By providing separate lists for these acts, we kind of acknowledge that music isn't beholden to one metric of appreciation.
In other words, more lists means more spotlights being thrown on more music, which to me is the point. Now, I am going to go buy Pinkish Black on the strength of this list.
I think Decibel calls the list "Top 40 Albums" because they want to have a place for albums like Yellow & Green and The Seer which may not be explicitly metal but are not totally out of place on a diverse list like this.
I really enjoyed Grand Magus this year. Kind of hokey riff-metal album in the same vein as Dawnbringer (which is superior I think). Also Bosse-de-Nage and Samothrace I really enjoyed. Krallice I guess would be up there. Years Past Matter was released this year right?
If I didn't know the name Den Penn, I'd think you were making names like Spooner Oldham, and Chips Moman up. Those are perfect Memphis country names if I ever heard them. He was also mentored by the greats like Phil Dilly, Clapper Millhead and Mont Montley.
Is Albini seriously suggesting that she should agree to pay all of the musicians that come up on stage and play along during a concert?
Yes, that is exactly what he is suggesting. That millionaire Palmer should take some of that compensation she and her band are getting from ticket sales and share it with these musicians doing the exact job she is doing, playing along. It's not messy, it's remuneration.
That, to me, is at the core of the problem. It's one thing to ask people to pay what they want for your material. Here, Amanda and her cohorts are getting PAID for every show they do because they feel they earned that money and they're asking to take on fans who don't earn a wage at all. The whole thing feels exploitative because we all KNOW Amanda Palmer is not doing this for hugs and high fives.
One thing I will agree on, after seeing the People's List on Pitchfork, is that we've arrived at too much of a critical canon. It's important to have outliers, experimenters, freaks and weirdos.
Unfortunately, I think it's time to head in a bold new direction. I would kill off one of the protagonists, either Kelly or Gabe. I know they're fan favorites, but we need to shake things up.
Nice list
Unwound albums from worst to best?
I'll make my predictions if this ever happens:
8. Unwound
7. The Future of What
6. A Single History:1991-1997 (comp)
5. Challenge for a Civilized Society
4. New Plastic Ideas
3. Fake Train
2. Repetition
1. Leaves Turn Inside You
Yeah, reading this headline did feel so weird. I mean this is a millennial album, right? I think as you grow older, your idea of what was a "recent" thing elongates. This is why my father thinks the eighties happened recently and now I call a movie that came out in 2007 "new".
"Hey, I'm gonna play this rock song at your rally."
"Do we have the rights to it?"
"No, but I've never heard of an artist or band suing over their song appearing in a political context without their permission."
"Good enough for me."
Comments