Even if there were a magical festival with an amazing lineup at the perfect time of year with perfect weather, lots of space, and free beer, I'm STILL not going to bother trying to see Grizzly Bear and Phantogram hop around on a stage a half-mile away with lights flaccidly blinking in the sun and the amps cranked up to "can you hear this a half-mile away?" Environmental issues aside, it's still the most-expensive-yet-least-audio-visual way to see a band. At 40 you're gonna find me in the questionably legal "art space" watching 4 bands play for beer and gas money, but never in the fenced-in city park music zoo.
Someone with the independent capacity to make an instant phenomenon track (TSwift, Radiohead) should drop an auteur single on each platform and then publish the data.
I really liked Halifaxa, and was a little bummed out by Visions. I thought 'Go' was amazing...so I'm not really sure what to think about this new record. If she's changing styles again, it's highly likely that I'll love it. XfingersX
What's irritating to me is that the same labels that push RSD to support the local store also have no-return policies in spite of known production problems. If your new $30 LP is warped out of the jacket, your record store is forced to either take the hit exchanging it, or refuse the exchange. The two entities least responsible for defects are forced to bear 100% of the cost of said defects. Occasionally there is a packaging fubar so egregious that the label will do a recall (the most recent Father John Misty, for example), but those are incredibly rare. My shop has opted to take back defective records, but mark them as such and re-sell them at a pro-rated amount.
Her opinions about pop culture aside, do you know anything about Sinead O'Connor or her output? I highly recommend you listen to 'The Lion and the Cobra' and imagine a 20yr old writing, producing, and recording anything like that today. Her next-to-last record 'How About I Be Me (and You Be You)' is pretty amazing too.
“Why release an album this way and why make it free?"
Well because we realize that after a decade or so of mediocre-to-decent easy listening records this is the only way to generate any excitement about new music from us.
Generally-speaking I like Tame Impala, but I saw the Innerspeaker tour and it was one of the worst shows I've been to. Somehow they managed to turn their whole catalog into a single, monotonous drag. It was like a jam-band show, but without any of the dynamics between instruments. I haven't been able to enjoy their records since.
I wonder if the comments section here would have the same response if we found out a venue was charging $50 for fugazi tickets, or bootlegging their Neutral Milk Hotel show? Look, artists get to make demands on the venues, plain and simple. That many of them choose to use their negotiating powers to retain specific guacamole recipes and XL condoms is their own business, but it's the same concept. Morrissey wants venues to go meat-free as one of his terms. If MSG agreed, then they're in breech of contract and deserve to lose a ton of money over this.
"As good as the album is, it has nothing on the controlled chaos of the band’s live show, and we get a taste of that in the performance." I agree the album is great, but this performance seems pretty sterile, and the sound (not their fault) is a perfect match.
I'm fairly certain Apple didn't dream up a PR scheme to rollout their entry into a crowded market by casting themselves as bad guys who get taught a lesson by a musician. Regardless, they're paying royalties to Courtney Barnett, Mac DeMarco, and Sufjan Stevens that they otherwise would not have received, and for all we know TSwizz is responsible. Why be cynical about that?
More power to her, but man I do not get the effusive praise for this at all. I mean, it's fine and her lyrics are interesting, but she comes across to me (on record) as a sorta indie-approved Sheryl Crow. I'll lump her in with Mac DeMarco as an artist for whom there is a great divide between what I read and what I hear.
I actually feel bad for KP if this is actually what she's trying to do. '1989' is historic in the sense that it's going to be remembered as a defining record of its time. KP has a lot going for her, but trying to make a dent in the TS machine in 2015 isn't going to work in her favor.
Yeah, I'm not going to hold a guy accountable for inchoate content that he never intended for release. This is completely different than Tyler the Creator, who releases stuff like this for entertainment's sake.
Funny, I remember that it was often bands themselves who exposed me to other bands, either through the liner notes, opening slots, or incessant promotion. I don't doubt any of what Ben Gibbard (et al) says about Tidal, but I'd much rather read about bands that he likes that I haven't heard of yet. Of course this assumes that Ben Gibbard actually spends any time caring about the bands he's supposedly defending. I know he used to be the kind of guy you'd occasionally see at the club watching a band. It'd be nice if he's still that guy to tell us about it. I feel like now when you read about an artist's likes, you either get the universal approvals (StVincent! Kendrick Lamar!) or some throwaway statement about how they don't listen to music.
So what I'm saying is who cares about Tidal and their zillionaire rollout? If there's a tiny band or label I need to know about, tell me about it, Ben Gibbard.
1. They're asking him if they can use the pictures again because they tacitly understand that whatever their payment arrangement was in the 90's, it did not include buying the photos. So pay the man.
2. The open letter thing is basically just Yelp-shaming for the entertainment business. He should just say 'no' and let it be, like I'm sure is the case for millions of content requests every day.
As an Rdio subscriber, the constant railing against Spotify seems like noise to me. Yes, they're the dominant provider of content. Yes, other models work better, as demonstrated tacitly by the presence of the Taylor Swift catalog, etc. I understand that artists are more prone to complain for free than they are to endorse something better without getting paid, but that's where a media outlet like Stereogum could be helpful, were they inclined to proactively report on the subject.
John Waters once said, "I would never cast Monica Lewinsky in anything. I’m interested in good bad taste, not bad bad taste.” Wayne Coyne it seems is incapable of making this kind of distinction when it comes to his projects. But hey, at least he's got a thousand of them just in time for Record Store Day!
Good grief. Ok, sure, it would still exist and it would probably be better. Let me rephrase: "SXSW is McDonald’s and 50 other faceless megacorps paying for everything."
Sure, but Ex Cops aren't playing SXSW 1990. It would be impossible for anyone remotely familiar with the modern event to not think of it as a gigantic corporate logofest.
I think that's a convenient argument to make here, because the band basically says in their open letter that they'll do SXSW shows for free. Look, SXSW wouldn't exist if McDonald's and 50 other faceless megacorps didn't pay for it. So McD's isn't paying bands on the band-to-band level; they're paying for the entire festival to exist. Otherwise Ex Cops could just roll into ATX in March and hope to play in front of 500 ppl like every other band their size. I want everybody to get paid for their work, and respect Ex Cops' right to refuse. I just think their position here is being overinflated. Way to stand up to corporations...at SXSW of all places.
Like, I get it, I guess, but I kinda have to agree with #slownewsday. Granted, I'm not their PR person so I can say it a little more freely. How is McDonald's supposed to know who will and won't play for free? SXSW is a convoluted mess and frankly neither party needs the other one. My bet is some band will be on that stage and they'll have an audience. I hope they do well. But hey, Ex Cops get to feel like fugazi for a day or two, I hope that works for them too. Whatever.
Thank you Stereogum for bringing this issue to a larger audience. I believe folks can make up their own minds about supporting Kels at his own concerts. Festivals on the other hand put other artists and the audience in an unfair position, to say the least. R.Kelly had sex with children. It's astounding to me that he's been able to maintain his popularity.
Kim Gordon keeps expanding on her comments because she's doing press and you can guarantee she keeps getting asked the same questions. Here's a woman who has always been a feminist icon, who made a remarkable amount of incredible music, and has been a singular voice in rock music for decades. Now she has a book and all we're allowed to read about his her husband's affair and what she thinks about another musician. Her criticisms are valid because she has a thoughtful point of view, and that's about it. She's not making an objective declaration of fact. I agree it's not on LDR to be anything, but at the same time it's legit for Kim Gordon to say her actions have meaning regardless of intent.
Comments