Rubbed so far the wrong way. . .

... that I can can never be made right again:
[www.vulture.com]



Post Edited (08-15-14 13:30)

I nodded off while reading this, so this is my bona fide cure for occasional insomnia.



Post Edited (08-15-14 14:07)

Is this an introductory column for a music critic, or a personals ad lifted from Craigslist?

That was an utter waste of time. I didn't even find out what her favorite color was.

Not cute enough to put up with that kind of pretentious pondering. Pass.



Post Edited (08-17-14 07:53)

She's slightly cuter than Emily White, who is pictured above. But not enough to forgive her the blather. All I can think of is that young people must react differently to this than you or I.

Not only could I not make it thru the whole article, I had precious little idea of what she was talking about in the part I did read.

Quote

All I can think of is that young people must react differently to this than you or I.

Maybe so. But I still think a good writer can appeal to different generations. Heck, plenty of writers appeal to readers throughout the centuries.

I'll never say a bad word about Christgau again*











(* Aw c'mon, who am I kidding?)

Image fixed. Result the same.

I'm gonna stick up for her.
There should have been an editor involved, so a lot of blame goes to them.
She's young and dumb. So was I.
Most writers are terrible at writing.
The Internet is a medium great for the proliferation of poor writing, and SELF expression.
Fifteen years of blogging and social media have just made things worse. (and better?)

There is no more woodshedding for writers; there is no more humility and years of writing for the drawer. Young writers often have a sense that every unremarkable piece of shit they produce needs some kind of audience to validate it. Most of the music writing I see--from the New Yorker to Pitchfork--is low on insight and poorly written. Though, like Onan, clearly it gave the writer a lot of pleasure.

Yeah, I'm old, but it also sucks. Two parallel truths.

I'd say Gina Arnold has a lot to answer for, but chances are at least 90% of these "new" critics haven't heard of/don't remember her.

Reminds me of the NPR blogger who got a lecture from David Lowery (the Lars Ulrich of the new millennium) over downloading.

You know, in my entire life I have never once read a music review and wondered about the writer's biographical information.

...

Perhaps she was obliged to write that? Perhaps someone in a suit somewhere became convinced that reviews that had fleshed-out biographical marginalia attached to them tested better with the focus groups?

Snark aside, I suspect it has to do with being any kind of content provider - writer, musician, filmmaker, whatever - in today's social media-dominated world. Everyone expects to know the personal details about the minds behind your entertainment, commentary, whatever. Hell, my dayjob boss insisted I have a Twitter account, because he felt fans ought to get to know the people behind the TV show. Not sure why anyone would care about that, but then, I'm of a different generation than this young lady. She was probably told to tell readers about herself, and given her estimated age (mid-20s at most, I'd say), she was probably only too happy to do it.

Presumably, her actual reviews and profiles will be about the work and not herself.

Her music reviews have never been that terribly interesting, although I have enjoyed the occasional essay or thought-piece (what a terrible word; implication is that other writing involves no thought?) on Pitchfork. But yeah, it's terrible to market your new pop music editor as if she's a new celebrity chef at a hot restaurant. I'm going to agree with Toland that she was expected to do that to market the full product - namely, her own name/persona/brand - along with the purported content of the work - namely, the music writing. And yes, I hope someone will please edit her a bit.

i think what erik is trying to say is,

'bands with fur (see tame impala) should feel free to lick themselves'



Post Edited (08-17-14 23:46)