Pitchfork is useful for discovering new bands and not much else. Once a band is a favorite they'll never impugn their work no matter how dreadful it is. Bob Iver sucks to me. Minutemen are good, but aren't for everyone. People who don't like the Beatles molest poodles. Have a great day.
I think after all this bickering we can all agree that I am the tastemaker thanks for all your support
I still check in, but I've found myself not enjoying a lot of the more favorite acts in here. I've just been enjoying more rock and alt-country acts these days. I love the new Sheer Mag album and really enjoyed the White Reaper album too.
You may be right. It was one of the first posts either way, and that's where I first heard about it, it pitchfork or anything like that.
I am saying a good review wouldn't make me like shit music and vice versa. I never read that review and I didn't even listen to that album until years later. What determined if I liked it or not was what it sounded like, which seems like a crazy concept to you. It didn't take a giant music corporation to make that album in the woods sound good to me. That was Vernon and his instruments.
I get M'ark's frustration because I also tend to find a lot of the music people love itt to be bland and/or generic, his extreme premise that most people only like it because an "authority" told them to is annoyingly retarded though.
Do you like Neapolitan pizza because it tastes good or because someone in a magazine said it's good? 2 very different ideas.
If you like Katie Perry, by all means listen to Katie Perry. But if you present it to people who listen to Black Panties and act like it's the same thing, well...
But what if the big magazine said the black panties were amazing and their independently recorded album became a hot seller? Using what appears to be your logic about being told what to like rather than using ears, you would then dislike them.
Lineup for God Save The Queen City fest is pretty sick. Also featuring Strand of Oaks, Jeff the Brotherhood and Ancient Cities
I really don't think you understood anything that I said. If Black Panties had not released any music and their first record blew up because of a review before they had done anything else, I would question that, yes. I may or may not like them, but I wouldn't go posting shit about them in punk circles.
It's all becoming more clear now: https://www.google.com/amp/pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/22506-double-nickels-on-the-dime/amp/ 9.5
For the record, I like Insomniac and Dookie by Green Day as well as the first Weezer record and countless examples of AOR from the 70s. I was almost certainly influenced by the opinions of others and reviews, directly or indirectly. I do not feel any of them deserve inclusion in an indie rock thread.
Why limit it to questioning? Go ahead and declare its not punk even if it sounds like and literally is authentic punk? Maybe you are seeing the flaws of your idea now.
Are we getting to the "does the scene authenticate the music" or "does the music authenticate the scene" part yet?
Kerplunk is ok, i prefer their major label stuff, but let's try to keep this thread clear of non-indie rock discussion. Happy to go to a different thread to discuss. Don't know what smash is.
That's fine, at that point I would dismiss them as a punk band and would not discuss them in punk circles.
So Authentic and good is all of a sudden NOT authentic and good simply if its well reviewed? I am shocked you don't see the flaws of your idea.
I have never listened to that front to back, but do enjoy the hits. I don't know enough about it to tell you how I would've felt when it came out, but I also don't think, despite the literal definition, that indie rock is defined by labels. For example, Tech N9ne and ICP have probably outsold most of the independent artists we have discussed in here, but they're part of a different conversation.
Yes, I'm available for all punk related queries. Double nickels on the dime is a great album and everyone has heard the song, Corona, whether they know it or not.
The coming of this latest Brand New album has brought to my attention that there's this album called Daisy I never knew of, and holy fuck. It's heavy, experimental (by their standards), dark, and incredible. I underestimated this band so hard for so many years, had simply considered them the only tolerable emo act my college roommate would listen to for the longest time.
Nothing since their first album has been remotely emo imo. Just great album after great album. Most people slept on Daisy, but I fucking love it.
I agree, even Deja isn't really emo, it's just an association I always made with the bands my friend would listen to. I'm sure you probably remember me making posts a few months back about gaining a new appreciation for Deja and Devil after randomly coming back to them, feel like Daisy just cemented my fandom though.
They're my favorite band ever. Go see them if they're coming near you on this tour. They're amazing live, and this will probably be their last.
Does any of that change the quality of the sound of the music or authenticity that went into making it? Of course not.
Authenticity pfft If that pitchfork review was never written, nobody would have ever listened to Bon Iver and it would've fizzled out on whatever tasteless blogs picked it up first to begin with
White Reaper'n around the house this morning. It feels like a good way to start the first day of college football.
Well, you can't say that as fact, and I would disagree, but it doesn't matter as it's irrelevant to the discussion. You didn't answer the question. The answer was no: - Authenticity of music comes well before a review is written. - A review is dictated by the quality of the music, not the other way around. Quality is what ultimately earns the respect of ears more than anything else.