Grantland

[Mercury69 3]

this about sums it up: http://www.theonion.com/articles/pitchfork...-music-68,2278/

I love the Onion. I also love their review section.

[speedz99 145]

He just works too hard at compartmentalizing music, trying to organize it and determine WHY it should be liked, or where it stands in time, or what it's derivative of, or whatever.

...isn't that his job?

Here's why I hate him: it's because he knows literally nothing about music, and, because he's a musical idiot, things which are new or groundbreaking confuse him rather than excite him. Everything he's ever written about music could pretty much be summed up as follows: "This is simplistic, therefore I like it, and it will stand the test of time because dumb ol' me can understand it." Or, conversely: "This is complicated/new/mildly challenging, therefore I dislike it, and clearly it will not stand the test of time because dumb ol' me can't understand it," as if his musical pea brain is some sort of arbiter of what the masses will be listening to 30 years from now--you know, because he's such a visionary.

And yet, you seem to have read everything he has written about music. Is it masochism? Is it for the same reason why people seem to watch Skip Bayless?But, I have to say, he's not writing music-related articles on Grantland for you. He's writing them for me. You should be getting your music reviews elsewhere, clearly. I, on the other hand, am more confused than excited by newfangled music that consists mostly of random sounds, and am interested in reading about whether or not those sounds are likely to spark a musical revolution or to fade into the background like most other attempts.

"The takeaway from all this, I suppose, is that w h o k i l l is a creative record, made by an auteur with (at least a modicum of) irrefutable talent."YOU ARE A NO-TALENT ASS-CLOWN WHO SIMPLY HAS THE AUDACITY TO COMPOSE SNARKY ASIDES LIKE THESE AD NAUSEUM AND IT'S MADE A 'CAREER' FOR YOUDIE

You've been very upset lately.

[mk 11]

And yet, you seem to have read everything he has written about music. Is it masochism? Is it for the same reason why people seem to watch Skip Bayless?You've been very upset lately.

I admit I have not, and maybe the stuff I haven't read is better.Nah, I just hate that fucking kingbutt Chuck Klosterman. And modern republicans.

[Mercury69 3]

Saw this expression among the comments on YouTube while relistening to Bizness"Klosterfuck"

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Come to think of it, I bet I could bring myself to actually de-map Chuck Klosterman if presented with the right opportunity.

[DJ Vu 176]

I don't understand anything on this page.

[Theraflu 1,035]

It got sad in a hurry, once the de-map line got unveiled.

[mk 11]

I, on the other hand, am more confused than excited by newfangled music that consists mostly of random sounds, and am interested in reading about whether or not those sounds are likely to spark a musical revolution or to fade into the background like most other attempts.

The key point here, though, is that Klosterman, because he's a total musical idiot, has no chance of predicting what will or will not stand the test of time and be popular down the road. He's a Luddite who's still utterly flummoxed as to why Radiohead has become one the most popular and respected bands in the world while Oasis has faded into oblivion. His musical crystal ball is as likely to predict coming trends as a broken watch is to give you accurate time, i.e. 2/1440. So yeah, don't accept what he has to say about music as anything other than his own uninformed opinion.

[speedz99 145]

The key point here, though, is that Klosterman, because he's a total musical idiot, has no chance of predicting what will or will not stand the test of time and be popular down the road. He's a Luddite who's still utterly flummoxed as to why Radiohead has become one the most popular and respected bands in the world while Oasis has faded into oblivion. His musical crystal ball is as likely to predict coming trends as a broken watch is to give you accurate time, i.e. 2/1440. So yeah, don't accept what he has to say about music as anything other than his own uninformed opinion.

Am I reading a different article than you? Seems to me that he liked the album, even if he didn't totally understand it, and is rooting for this band (or singer, or whatever) to do well in the long term, but is saying it's probably more likely that it won't be a long term success. What about that is incorrect?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

...isn't that his job?

Something being "someone's job" doesn't make it a worthwhile endeavor, but that's a much more general discussion...His job is to (occasionally) write about music. There are many goals that one can have when writing about music, but a common benchmark should be to make the reader better understand the music, or have a better appreciation for it, or to understand why it's bad (if it is). His article does none of these. It describes why he came to listen to it, it mentions that others like it, and he states that it won't stand "the test of time," whatever that means.Paraphrasing him paragraph by paragraph:1) The album is good but overrated2) He didn't really listen to it at first, but then he did cause of the internet3, 4) [Labeled: 1, 2] She looks like a dude and used to do puppets (nice)5) [Labeled 3] Some actual discussion of the music, but it's vague and unhelpful and just gives him a chance to name drop6) [Labeled 4] He doesn't get the lyrics.7) [Labeled 5] A bunch of BS about being a genius or standing the test of time or whatever8) The Same9) She's probably not very rich and famous, but now she had to get cool people to like her10) More puppetsThe end

[DJ Vu 176]

It seems to me that he mostly writes about music's relationship to pop culture and not whether it is objectively good. To talk about that you need to know more about the general public than music. I think you WMAYGLT guys forget how many people just listen to what's on the radio and don't torrent waffles or whatever the fuck.

[mk 11]

Am I reading a different article than you? Seems to me that he liked the album, even if he didn't totally understand it, and is rooting for this band (or singer, or whatever) to do well in the long term, but is saying it's probably more likely that it won't be a long term success. What about that is incorrect?

A lot of it. A major purpose for writing that article was to essentially shit on Merrill. His tone is disparaging throughout and any compliments are veiled or cloaked in snark. He builds the thing up in order to make his grand point, which is hidden in a fucking footnote (nice one): "We always want to reward art for being innovative, but most artistic innovations are not designed to hold up over time. They exist as temporary reactions to other things happening within the culture. And that means they will seem goofy and dated when the culture changes again." And here's the thing: this statement is UTTERLY fucking ludicrous. It's just: dead wrong. It's such a classic "I'm an expert, George Will-type" sentence that in passing sounds reasonable enough but with a few seconds' analysis is revealed as the idiotic opinion of a total charlatan. Is the work of Picasso 'goofy and dated' to you, Chuck? How about Van Gogh? How about...how 'bout fucking Beethoven, buddy? How about Hitchcock? Kubrick? Fellini? IRRELEVANT because the culture has changed a billion times since they were being innovative imo. Artistic innovation is EXACTLY what is responsible for artistic progress and this, ITSELF, changes culture. Someone takes a step in a new direction and others follow, re-interpret, add their own visions and creativity. If Klosteman's thesis had any validity whatsoever we'd all be listening to madrigals and shit.

[speedz99 145]

"We always want to reward art for being innovative, but most artistic innovations are not designed to hold up over time. They exist as temporary reactions to other things happening within the culture. And that means they will seem goofy and dated when the culture changes again."

Oh, well I think that's true. Very few truly innovative artists will be viewed positively after 10, 100, years. Sure, Mozart and Picasso will exist forever, but how many thousands of artists are forgotten for every one that's remembered? It's usually much more about the slow evolution of any given art form over time then it is about sudden change. Which seems like your point that "Someone takes a step in a new direction and others follow, re-interpret, add their own visions and creativity." Have you listened to the album he's writing about, and do you think it likely that in 25 years people will look back on it as genius?

[Mercury69 3]

For me, I am kind of an in-betweener here. While I tend to agree with what some of Klosterfuck says, I also find that his writing in this article is pretty judgemental, not just of Merrill, but of all indie types who are expressing themselves in various ways. Do I plan on buying this album? No. But I will still listen to tracks like Bizness and Doorstep from time to time. Whether the tracks "stand the test of time" is not up to me or anyone else to say. It's up to whoever is listening to it whenever they are listening, be it now or 20 years from now, and whether or not they are enjoying it at that time.At least, that's my take on it. I don't agree with everything critics write, using Robert Christgau as an example of someone I respect, but I also find he's hopelessly off-center with some of his ratings. then I remember he's just another human being and that I should use his opinion as only part of the formula for whether or not I will enjoy/like/buy an album.Also, I don't hate Klosterman like mk does, so there's that.

[mk 11]

Oh, well I think that's true. Very few truly innovative artists will be viewed positively after 10, 100, years. Sure, Mozart and Picasso will exist forever, but how many thousands of artists are forgotten for every one that's remembered? It's usually much more about the slow evolution of any given art form over time then it is about sudden change. Which seems like your point that "Someone takes a step in a new direction and others follow, re-interpret, add their own visions and creativity." Have you listened to the album he's writing about, and do you think it likely that in 25 years people will look back on it as genius?

I mean, again, I TOTALLY disagree with that sentiment. Truly innovative and talented artists are the ONLY people who are viewed favorably down the line. MOST artists who are derivative and play it safe and rip off other people's work end up being regarded as hacks or forgotten. The trailblazers are the ones who matter. Even if his premise were true, what would the correct response be? NOT try to be innovative or original because, hey, you might get left in the wake? Because Klosterfuck isn't an artist, he doesn't seem to understand that maybe not everyone wants to make something safe and boring and so instantly mainstream it can be regarded as an instant classic by aging lesbians like Chuck Klosterman. What if Merrill Garbus made exactly the record she was trying to make because it's what she was feeling and wanted to express and she doesn't give a shit about 25 years down the road because she might be dead by then and--DOGFORBID--because it's honest, people have related to it? His argument is first-and-foremost false, but secondly, even if true would hold no water because it would imply that no progress should be made, ever, because...why try?Klosterdouche is clearly going out of his way to try to tear down someone's work because he thinks it's gotten too much hype. It's such a lame, douche-a-tron thing to do, but I'd expect nothing less from him: it's what he does.I love the album, yes, and while I have no idea where it will stand in the pantheon of pop music 25 years down the road (only a self-important douche would attempt to predict things like this), I can say with certainty that as a fellow musician I'm inspired by it and will try to make music that's less shitty and more innovative because people like her continue to try new things and find an audience with them.

[speedz99 145]

I mean, again, I TOTALLY disagree with that sentiment. Truly innovative and talented artists are the ONLY people who are viewed favorably down the line. MOST artists who are derivative and play it safe and rip off other people's work end up being regarded as hacks or forgotten. The trailblazers are the ones who matter.

Well, let's use your examples.Picasso - trailblazer for sure, father of cubismVan Gogh - great, no trails blazedBeethoven - incredible, not doing anything crazy or "new" thoughHitchcock - innovative yes, but not in the same way as Garbus...the average person didn't have any trouble understanding what they were going forKubrick - see: HitchcockFellini - don't knowSo, yeah, I'm not sure you're right. Trailblazers do matter, but MOST people who try to do something completely new and different fail, and there are many people who matter who merely elevated an art to a new place, not necessarily by changing it, per se.

Even if his premise were true, what would the correct response be? NOT try to be innovative or original because, hey, you might get left in the wake? Because Klosterfuck isn't an artist, he doesn't seem to understand that maybe not everyone wants to make something safe and boring and so instantly mainstream it can be regarded as an instant classic by aging lesbians like Chuck Klosterman. What if Merrill Garbus made exactly the record she was trying to make because it's what she was feeling and wanted to express and she doesn't give a shit about 25 years down the road because she might be dead by then and--DOGFORBID--because it's honest, people have related to it? His argument is first-and-foremost false, but secondly, even if true would hold no water because it would imply that no progress should be made, ever, because...why try?

Well this doesn't make much sense. Klosterman is someone who looks at and writes about different areas of popular cultures, makes a very good living doing so in a world where everyone and his mother wants his take on pop culture to be cared about. It's a simple article about the fact that this kind of innovative (or whatever condescending term her might use) music often reflects current culture and will not translate to future listening. Sure, she may make music for herself and not care about 25 years from now, but why should that affect whether or not a pop culture writer can comment on it? He says the music is good, but questions if he'll still think that in 10 years. Why is that so offensive to you?

Klosterdouche is clearly going out of his way to try to tear down someone's work because he thinks it's gotten too much hype. It's such a lame, douche-a-tron thing to do, but I'd expect nothing less from him: it's what he does.

Music writers write about music that is popular. If they think it may not be popular for long, they say so. You love this music, fine. But that doesn't make him wrong about it long term prospects.

I love the album, yes, and while I have no idea where it will stand in the pantheon of pop music 25 years down the road (only a self-important douche would attempt to predict things like this), I can say with certainty that as a fellow musician I'm inspired by it and will try to make music that's less shitty and more innovative because people like her continue to try new things and find an audience with them.

That's perfectly reasonable.

[speedz99 145]

I should add that I would never bother defending Klosterman if not for being somewhat surprised and confused about you guys hating him so much.

[mk 11]

Well, let's use your examples.Picasso - trailblazer for sure, father of cubismVan Gogh - great, no trails blazedBeethoven - incredible, not doing anything crazy or "new" thoughHitchcock - innovative yes, but not in the same way as Garbus...the average person didn't have any trouble understanding what they were going forKubrick - see: HitchcockFellini - don't know

Dude, ever heard of impressionism? Pretty sure VanGogh did some stuff related to that. Beethoven not doing anything crazy or new? Read this. Do you know what kinds of movies the studios were making when Hitchcock was making his best work? Shit like this, the most insufferable sitcom tripe. Safe, boring, you get the idea. Then Hitch goes and slashes Janet Leigh in the first half hour of a movie. Incredibly groundbreaking. Same goes for Kubrick. It helps that they were both geniuses, of course, but they were 100% stepping outside the normal boundaries of what movies had previously been for all their most personal work. Fellini, well, that guy was just the shit. Watch 8 1/2 on Netflix stat, sir.

I should add that I would never bother defending Klosterman if not for being somewhat surprised and confused about you guys hating him so much.

Yeah, it's really just me, and I admit it's irrational to a degree. I suppose it stems from the fact that I hate professional critics because they create nothing and make a living denigrating the work of better, more talented people. Finding subjective fault with works of art is literally the easiest thing in the world to do. There is quite literally nothing that is easier. One requires no expertise, no burden-of-proof, and no ideas of one's own to criticize others' work. One can simply say, "this doesn't appeal to me and here's why" and then make up a bunch of shit, which is exactly what Klosterman does. He's a pop culture pundit who knows surprisingly little about the medium in which he proclaims himself as some sort of expert. But hey, you like reading his stuff and who am I to tell you not to. I feel we've hashed this out well enough and you've defended the indefensible rather admirably.But what I'm really saying is, I would love for Chuck Klosterman to try to make an album so I could take the nastiest, messiest shit of all-time all over it.

[speedz99 145]

Dude, ever heard of impressionism? Pretty sure VanGogh did some stuff related to that. Beethoven not doing anything crazy or new? Read this. Do you know what kinds of movies the studios were making when Hitchcock was making his best work? Shit like this, the most insufferable sitcom tripe. Safe, boring, you get the idea. Then Hitch goes and slashes Janet Leigh in the first half hour of a movie. Incredibly groundbreaking. Same goes for Kubrick. It helps that they were both geniuses, of course, but they were 100% stepping outside the normal boundaries of what movies had previously been for all their most personal work. Fellini, well, that guy was just the shit. Watch 8 1/2 on Netflix stat, sir.

Yeah, I knew I was stretching there.

Yeah, it's really just me, and I admit it's irrational to a degree. I suppose it stems from the fact that I hate professional critics because they create nothing and make a living denigrating the work of better, more talented people. Finding subjective fault with works of art is literally the easiest thing in the world to do. There is quite literally nothing that is easier. One requires no expertise, no burden-of-proof, and no ideas of one's own to criticize others' work. One can simply say, "this doesn't appeal to me and here's why" and then make up a bunch of shit, which is exactly what Klosterman does. He's a pop culture pundit who knows surprisingly little about the medium in which he proclaims himself as some sort of expert. But hey, you like reading his stuff and who am I to tell you not to. I feel we've hashed this out well enough and you've defended the indefensible rather admirably.But what I'm really saying is, I would love for Chuck Klosterman to try to make an album so I could take the nastiest, messiest shit of all-time all over it.

Fair enough. I actually haven't read all that much from Klosterman, it was just an interesting argument. On basically the same topic, which I'll understand if you don't want to discuss and get fired up about all over again, but maybe someone else would: My defense for professional critics in general is that the whole point of the profession is for someone to find a critic who shares his or her tastes, and to go ahead and read that critic's reviews of [insert any pop culture art form] because that critic of course has more time to sift through the incredible number of options out there to tell the reader what's good. If in general what Klosterman enjoys is what I enjoy, he's useful to me, even if someone who generally disagrees with him thinks he's a useless drain on society. And the best critics can be useful to anyone...for example, I don't have the same exact taste in movies as Roger Ebert, but he's generally great at saying, "I didn't like this movie, but if you're looking for X, Y, and Z out of a moviegoing experience, you might want to check it out." If you don't gave any critics denigrating the work of others, you also don't have any critics praising the work of others, thus inspiring greater audiences to view said work.

[mk 11]

for example, I don't have the same exact taste in movies as Roger Ebert, but he's generally great at saying, "I didn't like this movie, but if you're looking for X, Y, and Z out of a moviegoing experience, you might want to check it out." If you don't gave any critics denigrating the work of others, you also don't have any critics praising the work of others, thus inspiring greater audiences to view said work.

No, I agree with you here wholeheartedly. Some critics write from a place of such exuberance for the medium they critique that they really do provide a valuable service in that they celebrate the work of artists who might not otherwise reach a wide audience, and Ebert is a perfect example of that. Even in his most scathing reviews his love of movies is so transparent it's delightful to read; it's almost like he takes it personally when a movie strikes him as particularly mean-spirited or contrived or cynical or whatever, and that's fun. I also have no problem calling Ebert an 'expert' on movies, for whatever that's worth. He's written screenplays, watched like every movie ever made and understands the way movies are constructed well enough that he can speak about them passionately and articulately. The guy I wasted hundreds of words on above, relative to music...yeah, I don't consider him an expert on anything except maybe his own ego.

[DJ Vu 176]

An oral history of the Malice at the Palace.

[brvheart 1,752]

Simmons has been really talking that piece up. He thinks it's one of the best ever posted on Grantland.

[DJ Vu 176]

I thought it was fascinating, especially the 2nd and 3rd pages.

[Theraflu 1,035]

I thought it was fascinating, especially the 2nd and 3rd pages.

I'm with you. I was nearing the end of the first page and was all "meh, what's the big deal?" about it, and then saw that there were two more parts, and liked them a lot. I didn't realize how much I'd forgotten just about the initial incident, and how long it went on for, and how much I didn't know about all the "after" stuff. That Ron Artest; always doin' stuff!

[eYank 0]

Has anyone been able to find a video of the incident? The only one I found on youtube is a highlight of it. That's the only thing, I wanted to see what exactly the guys were talking about but couldn't find it