No Company Flow?

You might be thinking about how this song sounds like a follow up to Chris Isaak’s “Wicked Game”

Agreed. The only difference this time seems to be that the bite is gone. It’s almost like it was geared to receive less backlash, but it does still feel empty, but weaker. And pointless. And not very good.

I wouldn’t know, because that’s actually my exact point. There are talented musicians and untalented musicians, period. 3 chord guitarists and button pushers. Electronics wizards and guitar wizards. There seems to be a heavy focus on the materials being used here in this comment section. You in particular write about how easy it is to make dubstep music, but the emotional aspect of the art is being ignored and the technical aspects are being focused on. By that same token, just because you aren’t “button pushing” doesn’t mean that you are super talented or technical either. Frets, buttons, keys.. in the right hands and context, it shouldn’t matter what you’re pressing.

I admit that I only skimmed this thread and that I think that I may have carried my comments over from another post that I was reading, since I wrote this super late at night/early in the morning. If so, then I apologize. I just don’t find Skrillex to be that interesting, personally, but the conversation always expands ridiculously far beyond the individual. It stretches into attacking genres, large groups and seems to reject the emotional content or intention behind the music being created and I think that’s a mistake.

Good for you. Sorry that I don’t know how to type that without it sounding sarcastic, because I mean it. You realized that the best show you saw was something that people love to hate and felt that you couldn’t ignore the worth that you found in it, even though everyone would inevitably attack you. That’s reasonable.

A lot of music doesn’t sound that interesting to me these days, while a lot of stuff does. But it’s always been that way and I still can’t understand the choices of individuals any more than I ever could. While the internet has blurred everything into a big murky swirl like frozen pinkish-brown paste of mashed up neapolitan ice-cream with a spoon sticking out of it, there’s still a lot of trash. Things just aren’t separated as easily by genre to where people say, “I love metal. Rap sucks!” Because the same sites and festivals book all of it together. Sure, people say it, but those genres aren’t as well defined anymore as people would like to believe. Everyone is “indie” and everyone is “mainstream”, it seems. Then everyone argues about which is which. Still, everyone’s kicking it at the same party.

I haven’t been interested in Skrillex, because it just didn’t sound that interesting. Skrillex’s form of “dubstep”, just sounds like lazy drill n bass. If I want crazy shit, why wouldn’t I just listen to Aaron Funk? That stuff gives me anxiety attacks and I respect him for it. I might be uptight and getting old, but when I saw someone like Marilyn Manson get a fake contact lens and try to do a Ziggy Stardust haircut, I couldn’t shake the fact that I knew that he was ripping off David Bowie. I just couldn’t, aside from the fact that he’s terrible. That stuff is for the kids that are too young to recognize that it’s blatant plagiarism and/or simply derivative. The Skrillex “First of the Year (Equinox)” video got a lot of hype, but it just looked like a weak Chris Cunningham video ripoff. So the song was like sub-par Aphex Twin and so was the video. If you do something completely original, it can only be compared to itself. When you imitate something too closely, I have no other choice but to compare it to the original, and, unless you’re amazing, I’ll usually just wonder why I don’t see the original instead.

As for those who are blindly trashing electronic music and comparing it to the “studied” musician, it’s about time to move out of the dark ages. Why not trash everyone that uses effects and electric instruments instead of playing a fucking lute and a dulcimer? It’s too bad that you reject technology, because that means that you will never be able to travel back in time to add another voice screaming “JUDAS!” while Dylan goes electric. Amon Tobin and Squarepusher are “studied” and trained musicians, which chose to move into electronic music with amazing and innovative results. They create some brilliant stuff and I challenge anyone to put them up against a Jason Mraz and tell me how less talented they are. Most musicians are playing 3 chords and strumming along like assholes, anyway. Don’t get it twisted and attack an entire medium of expression, because you don’t have any history or knowledge of it. Is Faust lazy or innovative for playing cement mixers? That’s a tough one… you might have to get back to me on that one. Some shit just sounds archaic because it is, like panning electronic music. If you don’t like Skrillex as an individual artist, then I understand that. To attack electronic music as a whole though, just sounds ignorant. Look up Raymond Scott for one. Learn something.

I haven’t listened to Skrillex too much, so I probably can’t make an incredibly thoughtful assessment, but I haven’t been impressed. What I can say about him, in relation to this article, is that I think that I would generally respect someone that can pull the live thing off more than the studio thing. Even that, however, really relates to the nature of what they’re creating. Look at the alternatives (Lana Del Rey, etc.). Anyone can make studio magic and sound like a superstar. I actually think this article makes a good point. On the flip side of the coin, just because something is technically difficult, it doesn’t mean that it sounds good at all. I’d rather eat a pepperoni pizza than one that has figs, grapenuts, picante sauce, and pickled herring on it, just because it’s “innovative”. I went on prog and jazz fusion kicks for a while back in the day too, but I’m not limited by everything having to be the most technically advanced stuff in the world. If I was, I’d just listen to John McLaughlin non stop (which I did for a while). I’d never listen to Pink Floyd, because I wouldn’t respect emotional substance as much as wicked guitar licks. I would hate Nirvana. I’d only dig on the Beatles songs with the weird chords. I would limit myself consistently out of spite and no one else would give a shit because they’d be too busy dancing.

Well, my feelings are that, even if people aren’t hungry to specifically read about music “deconstruction” I feel that they would at least still like something that fosters a real conversation. When the posts are built on such non-existent foundations, it really doesn’t allow for much, if any, entry into a discussion.

Agreed.

After reading the Grimes piece and now this one, I’m starting to question the purpose of this new segment altogether. I’m honestly not trying to attack for the sake of attacking, but, I really did have high hopes for this column. For some reason I thought that a different person might be tackling the column each week, but it’s clear that I overlooked something and that’s not really an issue anyway. My real issue is that I thought that there would at least be a new interesting topic each week, set to instigate discussion, but that only seems like a bi-product of what’s being posted. The discussion being generated is mostly just about how the column is ineffective at creating any legitimate discussions and, as that’s easily passable as controversial and risky journalism that’s evoking emotional responses in itself, on paper, in reality, that excuse is just a cop out. Sure, the column is generating plenty of feedback, but if all of the comments are about how the column is disappointing, I’m not sure that can really be labeled as a success. If we can’t have a different columnist, that’s completely understandable, but can we please get a different topic? Is every week just going to be the same writer “deconstructing” a band that she hates or “deconstructing” a band that she likes. Will she just continue to explain why or why not the readers should or should not enjoy something, break down who the artists “really” are behind the masks, delve into their “real” intentions, and tie it up into a bow so that, as a reader, you can determine if you should feel validated in your personal opinions or if you should feel like a ridiculous asshole because you’ve been ignorantly enjoying the wrong shit the whole time? This is becoming nothing more than, “you should like ___ because…” or “You shouldn’t like ___ because…” pieces. They’re just glorified album reviews without the album. They are whole band reviews, under the guise of bold, powerful, investigated pieces and editorials. They’re constructed in a manner to avoid even having to explain who the artists are and the problem with that is this: if the author took the effort to introduce the artists, their backstory, etc a little further, then it would read as if Shepard was trying to introduce the reader to an artist and explain who they were to her and how she perceived them. Instead, by writing them as if she is storming a castle and coming at a topic which everyone should already be familiar with, she is either neglected the pool of people that don’t have any frame of reference for the artists and leaving them in the dust, or abrasively coming full force at those who have already formed an opinion and letting them know why or why not they are correct for liking or disliking something. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against walking up to someone, knocking a CD out of their hands and telling them what they like is completely trash, if that’s what you’re into doing, but it just seems dishonest or, a the very least a mistake, to frame this column in the manner that it’s been introduced to us. I have no problem calling these “articles” out as pretentious junk, but I’m not going to pretend that I’m changing the fucking world or the musical blogoshpere by doing so.

I couldn’t really embrace the Grimes piece because I felt that it was misdirected, but at least I appreciated the attempt at directing the topic towards something that was bigger than the artist -the idea of the blogosphere dictating .. what was it again? something… naive? or was it sinister? I can’t remember. Even if it seemed generously forced had no real foundation, at least it was an attempt to try and create some new level of framework around the subject. I was interested to see what would be next. What would the topic be about? Tastemakers in a post-John Peel world? Scouting rappers in the suburbs? It could have been anything, but what was it? … A “deconstructing” a female artist post. Both of Sheperd’s pieces have made sure to refocus the subject matter onto feminism at some point, which I would argue that most of the readers aren’t even thinking about or concerned with in these particular contexts. Click on the author’s name, which links to her bio, and then follow it to her site. Tell me how many articles or blog posts that you find that aren’t built around gender identity and feminism. If this is gonna be a column about women in the industry and if they are living up to their responsibilities as such (as defined by Julianne Escobedo Sheperd) then that’s what this column should be advertised as, so that it could save a lot of us the disappointment of expecting something less bland, played out, and uninteresting. I think that people are disappointed because they actually do want to be involved in a discussion and these articles leave no room for anyone in on the conversation. If you’re not the author, you are left out entirely. All that they can say is, “I hate that artist too” or “Hey, I love that artist” or vice versa. I’ve said it before, but if you are concerned about feminism and equality, it might be more helpful to have one less voice critiquing every move that a female artist makes and more beneficial to judge them based on pure talent and not what you feel may be a deeper rejection of their own gender identities. This approach is counterproductive for a number of reasons. If you’re only going to write about things in this fashion, then be prepared for every comment section to be filled with responses that are “deconstructing” Julianne Escobedo Shepherd. It’s the only conversation left.

Thanks. I haven’t commented on here enough to realize that there was a “profile” that I could modify at all. Unfortunately, while it’s allowed me to add the facebook and twitter accounts of my site, it doesn’t seem to retain the actual link to my site that I keep entering into the appropriate field.
( http://monsterfresh.com )

I’ll apologize for telling you to go fuck yourself, but at least I prefaced it with “If your intention is to imply that I didn’t read the entire article..”

I may have misinterpreted your above comment of “No, I just read enough of it (all of it)…” so, again, I’m sorry, because I didn’t want to jump the gun.

Honestly, that implication is the only thing that I truly disagree with, myself. You’ve made repeated comments throughout the comment section to engage in the conversation and I wrote one huge posts, so I will concede to that as well. I knew that my admittedly super long post was a reaction to what I’ve read in the comment section and, by that note, felt like I was engaging in the conversation. I just felt that any potential idea that I that I didn’t read it was dismissive, insulting, and wouldn’t have evolved any conversation, but rather would have been an example of not respecting any other outside veiwpoint. I also see that you haven’t entirely agreed with everything stated by Sheperd either. I like the idea of the column because it creates discussion and I pretty much despise anything that limits or shuts that down. I also believe that it’s ignorant to attack Sheperd strictly on the basis that her article was well written. Others have definitely done that here, but perhaps it offended them because it was paired with implications about Grimes’ own lack of maturity. Whether they presented those ideas productively or not, is debatable.

I do still believe that Jake’s original comment above might hold value, where he says, “This column fails because it doesn’t address Grimes’ music but the general reaction to it as perceived by Julianne Shepherd.” While you perhaps saw the part where he claims that the article “fails” because it “…doesn’t address Grimes’ music but the general reaction to it” I think that I primarily focused in more on the part that said, “…as perceived by Julianne Shepherd.”

As for the idea of a column, I think that it’s a good idea. I don’t read too many blogs and none of them regularly. I feel that the internet age as a whole has become lazy, focused on immediacy and that to create the instant gratification necessary for it, a lot of information is poorly researched and inaccurate. People don’t take the time to formulate well constructed opinions or to even give the material that they’re supposed to be reviewing enough time to unfold and reveal itself. It’s a huge electronic landfill full of outdated information about upcoming album art and tracklists with names of songs that we haven’t even heard yet. For that reason, longer form pieces with genuine analysis are welcomed by me and I think that it’s important to have some sort of material like this out there. As for this particular article itself, I’m not really a fan.

I have my own site where I write plenty of lengthy (possibly, self-indulgent) pieces analyzing music and art. My readership will never reach the level of a Stereogum because that sort of traffic comes with the quick turnaround, high content approach of sites that actually yield income. I’d like to state that out of those sites that do make money and have a large readership, Stereogum is probably one of the better ones that I’ve seen, actually providing some solid information and mixing in enough subject matter that interests me in with the filth that doesn’t. In my own personal reviews, I’m more interested if something is “legit” or not, knowing that “good” and “bad” ideas of art are subjective. Of course, this is still just more dancing about architecture, after all. There are things that I want to find out as an individual, though. Is this just a marketing ploy? Does it just feel like a giant Pepsi logo or does it feel like an actual piece of art or a creation with some soul in it? Is there something behind it or is it just another album that I already have, but worse? Is the artist(s)’ intentions real? Does it work either way? Success is based on the level manifestation of an original intention for someone creating something. Sometimes, it can even become it’s own entity when it veers into something else. Do I believe that Grimes’ intention is pure? Sure. Believe it or not, I actually do. Do I believe that the author writing this reviews intentions are pure? That’s a little less solid to determine, but I do believe that she is reaching for the best story and the best angle. As a writer, her piece is her art and deserves to be critiqued just as much as the subjects that she writes about. I do believe that some of this the writing is a bit bloated, but that goes along with my own ignorance of Grimes being a viable issue to discuss on this level in the first place.

Seeing that I have my own site, I receive a generous amount of press releases in my inbox, asking me to review something, go to shows, and/or download/checkout an album, etc. I live in Seattle and Grimes was coming to a really small venue out here. I’d never heard of her. I was offered a spot for the show that was, apparently, filling up quickly. I downloaded the album that they sent me and watched a couple of videos- one of which was an interview. I didn’t take them up on the offer for the show, because I had prior personal engagements and didn’t know if I’d even be in town. The show did eventually sell out though. I listened to the album. It was alright. I gave it a few chances as I drove around over the next few weeks and it grew on me. Her voice, not unlike Joanna Newsom’s, began with a somewhat grating and questionable tone, only to morph into a much smoother sound leaving me questioning where the off-pitch quality had dissipated to. It has not developed into something as impressive as Joanna’s body of work yet, however. I like this new Grimes album. I think it’s an enjoyable effort and I’m the type of persona who’s much more incline to listen to a old Krautrock music, Blues Control, Townes Van Zandt, Bill Callahan, The Melvins, Mikal Cronin, Cave, Death Grips, or any number of other types of music that are much less poppy. Even in her interview, Grimes talks about loving pop-stars. She talks about the idea of being like one, except that she would be able to produce her own music. This is my only knowledge of her as an artist. The interview, the press release, and the actual album, which I’ve listened to quite a few times. I knew nothing of her internet presence (I came here to read an old Kevin Barnes writeup about being a sell-out and found this link). Although I did expect her to eventually gain one, I’m not always correct about the time it will take for these things to mature into yielding attention (see NURSES from Portland, Oregon). As a person with little knowledge of her growing fame, I found little connection to this article and what I’ve perceived and continue to perceive about Grimes as an individual, an artist, or the intentions of this individual/artist.

My issues with this piece aren’t with Sheperd’s viewpoints or tastes regarding the music. Neither do they stem from her wording, passion, writing ability, or even her need to criticize the craze being generated behind Grimes. I feel that an article reviewing Grimes’ work and giving it a negative review are completely justified, if someone is not a fan of it. That, after all, is the critic’s job. If she believes that the praise being garnered is unjustified, I feel that an article about that is also just as relevant. Attack the bloggers for missing the point and over-hyping a mediocre talent. Grimes’ work is far from my favorite current music out there and isn’t landing on any best of lists that I’m creating -even if I believed in “best of” lists and created them. Attack those lazy writers. My issues come from Sheperd’s focus being incredibly misguided. This isn’t an album review or an attack on the media hype. Instead, it’s a misdirected hybrid that attacks Grimes for the opinions of others about her, while the writer continues to create personal inflated opinions of her own. This artist never championed themselves on the ideals of being revolutionary or marketed herself as a strong woman that stood for anything. She herself has claimed that she loves pop music and wants to make it. For me, the article is offensive because it is written by a woman from the perspective of a woman about how other women should be acting. It’s written from the perspective of a woman implying that her opinions about other woman and holding them to her own personal concepts about how they should act is empowering to her gender as opposed to suffocating and repressing it. The problem with feminist movements or any similar movement can be that it sinks itself with it’s own lofty idealism. The main issues with racism, sexism, or any -ism is that certain groups are being singled out and treated differently. Pride is essential, but when someone identifies themselves strictly by those differences and nothing beyond, it seems unrealistic to expect anyone else to identify them differently. I have friends that are lesbians, etc. but those friends are people that happen to be lesbians, or black, or older, or… whatever. Those aren’t what make them people, it’s one aspect of them. This idea that, as a female, Grimes should push that element into the forefront of her image and generalize herself or identify herself primarily with those concepts that you attribute to what makes a female artists is counterproductive, because it doesn’t broaden the idea of a womanhood, it actually limits and confines it. It forms a box and feeds on prejudice. It doesn’t liberate anybody or any group.

Each female artist should be responsible for adopting specific predetermined empowering subject matter and a specific image? Really? That’s bullshit. The feeling of this article, for me, is that it complains about an artist existing in a vacuum, while the actual position of the author seems to be that Grimes isn’t exhibiting herself within a box that the writer has created for such artists. Sheperd’s concepts of what a female artist should be or what a current electronic artist should be seem to what exist in a vacuum and her problem deals with Grimes not existing within it. It seems hypocritical and unjustified in general. “Why doesn’t that black man sing about the ghetto? Why is he writing songs about normal every day shit? We rely on those people to give us the perspective of people that are from there. Not as individuals with individual ideas that are personal to themselves.”

There’s an old Tupac quote that is something to the effect of. “I only know how to be responsible for what I do I don’t know how to be responsible for what every black man did.” Does Grimes make any sentiments that deep? Probably not, but the point is that she’s not trying to. Is Stereogum’s disclaimer interesting? Sure, because it points out that people are responsible for their own opinions in this column. Sheperd, however, seems to tout her own opinions about her own intelligence and knowledge in an effort to attack Grimes for not being pretentious or political enough and only comes across as pretentious to so many of the readers commenting. For those upset that this is article is not a critique on the music, it’s easy enough to claim that it isn’t supposed to be. But what is it then? She tries to play both sides of the coin, attacking the music without support and then attacking the artist without support. There’s support for her own feelings about what Grimes is not and attack on the blogging community as a whole, but the attacks are misdirected and, while this is supposed to be a personal piece, there’s a heavy attempt to support it with much broader concepts and sell it as an analysis that is proven by outside sources other than her own individual opinions.

Someone above felt that Sheperd’s approach was a little misguided and received the response from another commenter that joked, “The column doesn’t fail because it’s not what you wanted it to be! Ha ha holy moley. ‘This taco fails because it’s not a burrito’ ” That would be a valid point, if that wasn’t actually the problem with the author’s entire article in the first place. Grimes is not a burrito and people still like it. Sorry. You can take ownership for your feelings or you can support them with outside sources, but nothing in here really supports the projections made on Grimes intentions as an artist and, in turn, it doesn’t really make a case for if she is successful or otherwise. Without that, it doesn’t really make a case for if the attention that she is receiving is even warranted or not.

this is the first list that I’ve seen Death Grips on yet. Glad they listed that one.
I guess they must not be huge fans of Bill Callahan, because his new album was amazing.