Look Stereogum, you're complicit in spreading this nonsense. Nothing new to the fact that Kid Rock represents an unfortunate sliver of the pop spectrum, and more of the same is just part of his album cycle. Plus it's basically Spin Magazine reporting what someone said in Rolling Stone. So you got scooped on sexist nonsense? And you report it?
It's clear to me that the artists who have opinions about streaming aren't actually familiar with the service beyond "Spotify has free content." In Björk's case, she should just say that her new album is high concept and incredibly expensive, and that streaming it isn't her vision for how it should be experienced. FWIW, she has 48 releases streaming on Rdio. Are those less about respect?
But I'm ok with that answer; people have always chosen to listen to their music based on the delivery medium's "cool" factor. There wasn't anything wrong with my walkman, and cassettes were everywhere; but I wanted a Discman because it was cooler. Sure the sound quality was better, but the device was terrible for walking and mowing the lawn. Records are just way cooler, and they have the potential to sound better than mp3's if you invest a little bit in your system.
I've listened to a pono, and yes, there is a difference. Pono audio quality is better. The issue (now, as ever regarding audio fidelity) is whether the things you can hear in a hi-fi system actually matter to the listener. Do you want to visualize ("image") the environment where it was recorded? Do you want to listen for the acoustic qualities of Abbey Rd Studios vs. Electric Ladyland? Do you want to hear fingers on strings, palm-slaps on congas, etc? If you do, then there's a lot that only hi-fi can give you. If you just want to hear the music for its general effect, then get whatever delivery system works for you and your budget.
In my opinion, articles like this one persist because audiophile jargon (and the ppl themselves, frankly) keep the distinctions of hi-fi as esoteric as possible, and so even pros making side-by-side comparisons don't know what they're supposed to be listening for.
I'll speak from my experience as a member of their fanbase. I met Billy Corgan after an infamous show on the first US leg of the Siamese Dream tour. BC got mad at the sold-out crowd and ended the show 5 songs in, storming off the stage. 30 mins later he came out for the express purpose of signing autographs but was totally rude about it. That's the kind of guy he's always seemed to be; one who wants to engage fans, but also wants them to feel bad about it.
His band made two meticulous, beautiful records, and then they became a band with different, predictable pressures on them. 'Under the Bridge' created an alt-rock arms race for mom jams and SP's were standing by with 'Disarm' AND 'Today.' The Pumpkins did mellow slow burn better than their peers, but for album 3 instead of making another 'Rhinoceros' we got '1979.' That's when I could sense it all slipping away.
Billy Corgan may have written and played every note, but on those first two records they were The Smashing Pumpkins. Everyone knew they didn't get along very well, and I wouldn't blame Corgan for failing to keep them all together necessarily. But musically inept and/or disagreeable, D'Arcy, Iha, and Chamberlain oozed cool and made them a band. Corgan tours with a revolving lineup under the banner of his old band and tinkers with his sound in ways that make it very clear to someone like me that he's helming a mid-sized venue nostalgia act. I'm glad he likes the music he makes now, but I'm no more interested in seeing his band than I am in seeing Alice in Chains or Live.
My problem with the show was largely how self-serving it was. Dave Grohl is probably the perfect rock celebrity to host a maudlin documentary about semi-recent American music because he's utterly non-threatening. If it had just been "Dave Grohl's Sonic Highways" it might have been something special. But no, it's "Dave Grohl Pretends There's A Concept Behind His Latest Album That Sounds Like All His Other Albums."
The perfect example of how Dave Grohl works is going to Steve Albini's studio to let Butch Vig produce his music.
Corgan added, "Look, if you want to release a record in 2014 that's steeped in pretentious grandeur, you don't have to make everybody sit through 8 hours of television to do it. Trust me."
Paid-tier Rdio is full on access and usability. $10/mo gets you queued albums, playlists, stations, the ability to choose your stream quality, and offline mobile listening - which is a proprietary download that lives on your device. It's amazing. And it has Taylor Swift.
"Swift’s interview with Yahoo is interesting because it’s more centered around business — around the idea of selling her album — than with the artistic decisions she made. And she talks about those financial decisions, if anything, with more verve and authority than she brings to actual music conversations."
This is incredibly condescending. If Stereogum doesn't find TS's artistic verve or authority very compelling, then don't write about her. Selling a huge record in 2014 is tricky stuff, and she clearly understands her position. It seems the author wants his Taylor Swift to be cute and peppy, not intelligent and savvy. Because she can communicate her business position, it seems necessary to knock her down a few pegs artistically. She can't be both now can she?
Owen Pallett's comments are perplexing to me. He seems to want to keep the allegations on even keel, but clearly considers this guy a woman-beater outside the context of whatever roles they were allegedly playing "because they said so." He adds a blanket statement about the rules of BDSM lifestyle (which OP assumes were broken) as if they were universally crystalized. I appreciate OP's attempt to retain the possibility that his friend has some hidden terrible tendencies, but his statement seems to be a pendulum swing that goes way past objectivity, and unnecessarily so. Was he implicated in this at all? Or just a Canadian musician?
And let's face it, it's not like Grizzly Bear are touring monsters. I live in a US city with a million-plus population, and GB have played here one time in the Yellow House/Vecketimest/Shields cycle. I understand the problem and sympathize with the musicians, but they're not doing themselves any favors when I see those 12 stop tour itineraries.
I mean to say that the song doesn't seem to stand on its own. I'm less concerned with how it compares to Pinkerton in a direct sense. Obviously Stereogum doesn't cover EVERYTHING, and some stuff gets picked up because it's awesome and some stuff gets picked up because it's released by a known entity that meets some criteria. As one who periodically likes Weezer, I feel like this tune is definitely notable only because they recorded it.
Hmm. Well, I'll give it this, it's not dumb in the same way most Weezer songs have been in the past decade or so. But it's hard to imagine we'd be having this conversation if this tune were by a new band.
As for extra musicians, he's not talking about having a non-band member playing with them on stage, he's talking about musicians standing behind the stage or in the wings, playing along. Alkaline Trio does this because they're a "trio," so they have a 2nd guitarist playing behind the backdrop. Gigantic bands like U2 typically have an entire backup band playing beneath the stage so if someone breaks a string or drumstick, or if a pedal craps out, there's no drop in the music.
Names? Vampire Weekend, for one. Most of the keys were pre-recorded and dude pantomimed playing them. There are also special secret guitar things that happen, so the lead dude turns around away from the crowd.
It's funny cuz it's true!
This past summer I got to work video crew for a few festival shows (including Jack White) and several big name indie rock acts used hidden musicians and pre-recorded tracks. The pre-records aren't such a big deal...except when the band members are mimicking playing them. That's the thing that got me - not that there were taped synths and stuff, but that they had members on stage pantomiming playing them. FWIW Jack White didn't have any of that stuff, and his show is done without set lists and with highly volatile analog equipment. Dude really puts himself out there for things to go wrong in ways that other bands of the same exposure don't.
My comment was born out of my general feeling that Weezer is so far removed from what they once were that it's difficult to imagine this album deserves praise, followed up by the lack of music to back up the claim. 'Back to the Shack' is pretty terrible - predictably so. I saw those tours too (opening for Lush, opening for Live, etc), as well as the pre-Green album reunion shows where they started flirting with the flying V's and ironic hard rock imagery that would quickly swallow them and turn them into a gag band. Like you, I just want them to be decent again, but without the benefit of any good music to balance out the lead single, you'll have to forgive me for suggesting this reads like label promotion.
Not sure if this story could read any more like quote-whore payola promotion if it tried. Guys, y'all gotta keep the act behind the curtain a little better.
Comments