33 Comments:
I think the "violation of the separation of church and state" basis for the ACLU's challenge to the proposed Dunwoody football field is an uphill battle in the present context, but here's hoping they're successful in blocking the field. It's not at all what the city needs in that spot, IMO.
Regarding the gay marriage ban effort, I have to say the photo of GOP Chair Ron Carey holding up the Washington Times paper with the "Gay Marriage Ban Struck" headline reminds me of old b&w photos I've seen of angry white guys in the South inciting the populace to defend themselves against "uppity negroes" during the civil rights era. All he needs is a fedora, a tobacco-spitting cop or two, and a menacing doberman in the background, and it's 1955 all over again! But seriously, why is hatred so photogenic?
Never mind the ironies and complexities of the present-day struggle for civil rights for gays and lesbians, which sees many devout folks, minorities and otherwise, siding with the forces of oppression. It's a long road...
»» Submitted by a.h.o.i. at 4:35 AM on February 28
Dunwoody! Jeez.
Make that De La Salle.
Besides, everybody knows Dunwoody already has a football field in the works. It'll be right where Loring Park is.
»» Submitted by a.h.o.i. at 5:18 AM on February 28
I have no idea how this is interpreted, but Article 13, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution states: "PROHIBITION AS TO AIDING SECTARIAN SCHOOL. In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught."
»» Submitted by mike s at 9:29 AM on February 28
Yeah, another law! That will solve the problem of lousy drivers not paying attention. I suppose it's too much to hope we have some legislators with 15-year-old mentalities?
»» Submitted by »»» srhcb at 9:34 AM on February 28
Add $88 million to the state budget surplus.
»» Submitted by Kevin at 10:04 AM on February 28
hey, this is not on topic, but this feels like news...
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/t/tapes-n-tapes/loon.shtml
the malkmus references are a bit annoying, but not completely off-base. 'cowbell' is a free download on their website/is fantastic.
i'm slightly amused that a chicago, hipster snotrag like pitchfork raises these guys high while local reviewers don't trumpet them because they don't frequently play the "clean clubs" (fine line, varsity) ... maybe i'm off the mark -- show me textual evidence.
i'm not on their payroll, nor do i live with/fuck any of them.
-savvyparker
»» Submitted by forked over at 10:45 AM on February 28
I saw that review, but couldn't make it past the first sentence: "You won't find a tougher sell on neoclassicism than yours truly, so imagine my surprise how this strummy slab from the thrift racks has become one of my early '06 faves." Who is Sam Ubl, and why would he -- or his editors -- imagine that anyone would be interested in his opinions on "neoclassicism," let alone in whatever he's trying to say in the remainder of the sentence. "[S]trummy slab from the thrift racks"? Shut up and review the record, already.
Someone needs to kick Sam Ubl in the junk, for wasting 30 seconds of my life.
»» Submitted by mike s at 10:58 AM on February 28
Why would you read Pitchfork if you weren't expecting to read such reviews?
And are you two pro- or anti- Tapes-n-Tapes?
»» Submitted by »»» taylor at 11:17 AM on February 28
I'm pro tapes-n-tapes, but anti-pitchfork. T&T is the best band in Minneapolis when they have Joe from Bridge Club playing guitar with them.
»» Submitted by stevemarsh at 11:34 AM on February 28
I am agnostic on Tapes-n-Tapes. I haven't bought the new CD yet. That first sentence of the review doesn't make me want to run right out and buy it, but it's on my shopping list.
As for pfork, the news is useful and it's decent way to find out what those pfork-type people are listening to -- even if the reviews are typically awful.
BTW, apropos of nothing, this is my all-time favorite pfork review of a TC record.
»» Submitted by mike s at 11:29 AM on February 28
Fucking hilarious.
»» Submitted by stevemarsh at 11:46 AM on February 28
I saw Tapes 'n Tapes for the first time last night at the Entry (opening for the excellent Voxtrot) and was very impressed with the live show, but I'm not as big on the recorded songs I've heard (though I like "Insistor"). Guess I'll have to pick up Loon to see how the complete album sounds.
Here's an interview with Josh over at the Indie Interviews Podcast
»» Submitted by »»» moe at 11:48 AM on February 28
Cool podcast.
I can go either way on Tapes-n-Tapes, but support Pitchfork. If for no other reason than they have a pretty wide net that brings in all sorts of stuff and their Top 50 brings a lot of discussion.
»» Submitted by »»» taylor at 11:59 AM on February 28
I'm pro-Pitchfork too. Except for file-sharing/iPods, I can't think of anything that has shook up the music industry more in the last several years. There's a kind of reverse-elitism in their reviews, but it's still impressive what they've pulled off.
»» Submitted by »»» rex at 12:13 PM on February 28
I agree with the guy that quoted the Pitchfork review. They definitely pull out the thesaurus on those reviews, and they try so, so hard to sound like hipsters. I love words and enjoy increasing my vocabulary each year, but if I need a dictionary to find out their take on the latest Death Cab for Cutie CD, than forget it. I'm not saying they should dumb it way down, and say, "The new CD was great, becasue the music was good and harmonious, and those guys are really onto something," but they take it a bit too far. In addition, I've always thought that if they think half of these new albums that come out have a fraction of the depth of thought put into them, or if the half drunk/half drugged musicians in most cases would even be able to relate to what they write, they're wrong. I've seen so many interviews with stars who have long-winded reviews quoted to them, only to turn around and say, "Oh... don't know what that means really, but it sounds bloody good, heh, heh, heh, buy that bugger a beer mate." I get it Pitchfork
»» Submitted by Champ at 12:44 PM on February 28
I guess I didn't realize lawmaking was so easy. I guess I'll contact my legislator to draft bills outlawing stupid moms disciplining their kids in the backseat, slobs who eat in the car, teenagers loading CDs and my personal favorite: women who apply makeup on the freeway. Especially eye makeup. It's good to know the folks at the capitol are there to respond to my needs.
-d
»» Submitted by »»» DaveM at 1:52 PM on February 28
Which words, exactly, are you people having trouble with in that Pitchfork sentence?
»» Submitted by chuck t at 3:36 PM on February 28
In 2004, cell phones or citizen-band radios were listed as contributing factors in two Minnesota fatal crashes, 109 injury crashes and 119 crashes involving property damage.
For what it's worth, there were a total of 567 fatal crashes in Minnesota in 2004.
»» Submitted by »»» indie at 3:38 PM on February 28
Probably the mussolini reference, chuckt.
»» Submitted by stevemarsh at 3:56 PM on February 28
As in, Pitchfork reviewers are indie rock fascists? True, but that's no reason to hate on them.
»» Submitted by chuck t at 4:17 PM on February 28
chuck t: Which words, exactly, are you people having trouble with in that Pitchfork sentence?
I'll break down my response:
"You won't find a tougher sell on neoclassicism than yours truly,..."
Right off the bat, it's a bad sign when a reviewer starts talking about himself in the first sentence of the review. Unless the reader is Sam Ubl's mom -- and I'm not, btw -- they probably are going to wonder why he's talking about himself and his skepticism toward "neoclassicism" instead of ... uhh ... the new Tapes-n-Tapes CD. And even Sam's mom is probably going wonder what he means by "neoclassicism," a word that is defined (at least according to the indie rockers at the OED) as "an early 20th cent. style of composition characterized by a revival of 17th and 18th cent. baroque and classical forms, procedures, and styles, esp. as a reaction against 19th cent. Romanticism."
"...so imagine my surprise..."
Sorry, what was that, Sam? I was thing about something else.
"...how this strummy slab from the thrift racks..."
I met a strummy slab in the thrift racks, once; I'm looking forward to writing about the encounter in a review of the new Mogwai CD.
"...has become one of my early '06 faves."
Except for the part where he writes about "my early '06 faves," this part isn't so bad.
»» Submitted by mike s at 4:32 PM on February 28
It wasn't that sentence, but for you Chucky, I'll do some homework....okay, I'm back, and here's a taste, although these were hard to find, and I will agree I was maybe exaggerating a tad that they were that difficult to read"....'as if refracted prismatically"...."The sense of a lesson learned, however platitudinous"...a blaring joke of thick-chorded guitar and arrogant, pitch-corrected yowling that gives out cornholes to every unknown American group valiantly trying to find the cracks of creativity in its titular sound (not that this particular quote was that hard to decode, just inducive of vomiting). All in all, maybe it's the fact that they all sound like the same schmuck wrote them. It seem it's more about the style and suaveness that these writers are concerned about getting across, much more, than the how good the actually CD was when they played it once in their Jetta.
And another thing: If the Killers get a 5.2, than 50 Cent doesn't get a 7.0. Just my opinion, but I have seen a trend of this lately, be it Spin, RS or Pitchfork. Some band like Interpol will come out with a mesmorizing 45-50 minutes of flawless production and genius, and get 3out of 4 stars, and then some piece of shit named L'il Greasy will put out his third shitty album of the year of complete garbage, and... you guessed it, 3 stars.
»» Submitted by Champ at 4:15 PM on February 28
RS is always great for that.
Almost as great for that as they are for handing out 1 star reviews, only to put that same artist on the cover an issue later after the album sells a bajillion copies.
»» Submitted by »»» indie at 5:02 PM on February 28
Too perfect. Mike S complains about how the pitchfork critic writes about himself when he should stick to the record, and then Mike S writes in first person throughout his review of the pitchfork critic's review. Then he throws in a show-offy reference to fucking Mogwai. Circle Jerk City and Mike S. is the mayor.
That said, Pitchfork stinks.
»» Submitted by stevemarsh at 5:26 PM on February 28
Almost as great for that as they are for handing out 1 star reviews, only to put that same artist on the cover an issue later after the album sells a bajillion copies.
I'm not a huge Rolling Stone Magazine fan, but can you name a specific example -- just one -- where this happened?
»» Submitted by ? at 5:52 PM on February 28
Steve, either I need to work on conveying irony or you need to work on detecting it.
»» Submitted by mike s at 6:01 PM on February 28
Mike S...Maybe if you used more emoticons?
I know Pitchfork isn't exactly an AP venue, but I'd much rather read a music review that focuses on music and gets to something resembling a point, rather than calling out the didactic qualities of the musician's crotch, or some other bit of random idiocy.
MinneapolitanMusic seems to have the right idea, at least in my book.
»» Submitted by »»» richg at 6:21 PM on February 28
I'd say the problem is with the former, Mikey. Here's a tip from a professional: when I'm conveying irony, I rock a "JK!!" at the end. Or I use the word "didactic" in there somewhere. Either one makes you come off like a deesh though. JK!!
»» Submitted by stevemarsh at 6:54 PM on February 28
More discussion of the review here and here.
»» Submitted by mike s at 9:05 PM on February 28
Marsh, being the deesh he is, forgot to mention how handy "lol" is too.
»» Submitted by »»» richg at 9:11 PM on February 28
? - Yeah, the first time I really noticed this was years ago when Linkin Park put out their first album. I read a one star review and just one issue later (it may have been two, but either way it was right quick) they were being heralded as Rock Gods on the cover after "One Step Closer" went big on radio.
RS website has the album rated at 2.5 stars, but I have the hard original copy in a big cardboard box because I am an idiot and don't throw magazines away.
But all of this is neither here nor there nor local.
»» Submitted by »»» indie at 10:39 PM on February 28
Hmmm, indie. Not sure I agree with you. I did a quick search of Rolling Stone covers on the magazine's website. That review ran on Dec. 7, 2000 (the one you claim is a one-star review in the magazine) and Linkin Park wasn't on the cover until March 14, 2002.
Unless I'm making a mistake?
»» Submitted by ? at 12:04 AM on February 28
Sam Ubl is amazing & you are all losers! I know him in real life & he rules. & he loves LDC Soundsystem. & he is a baaaaaaaaaaaad neoclassicist muthafucka.
Nobody believes me, do they? It's true. I am net-stalking my friends.
»» Submitted by Boomkat at 12:01 PM on March 15
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
|
|
|
