Fun Stuff > BAND

Twee as Fuck - Pitchfork's history of indie pop

(1/6) > >>

nickyandthefuture:
Well, first, here's the link: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/features/weekly/indie-pop/

I thought it was a pretty interesting history.  He hit most of the significant points, and more importantly, I think he really understood a lot of what the culture was about.  It was, at least, much better than the dismissive, above-it-all stance one tends to see in Pitchfork.  Description of it as, "a scene where the pinnacle of style was to be a nice, normal person who made some tiny, lovely thing on your own," captures quite a lot of the feeling that I found so attractive about it when I was younger.  I don't quite agree with how it is characterized as a reaction to punk, though.  I mean, there certainly was a contrast that the pop kids were quite aware of, but I think Sarah bands would have sounded pretty much the same even if punk was cheerier.

It leaves out a lot of stuff, as well.  There's no mention of Kindercore and the Athens branch of American pop, and there's only a passing mention of the Elephant 6 bands, but I guess a stronger focus on Sarah and K Records might have been better for clarity anyway.

There's also not much mention of the current state of affairs, other than to say that it's harder to distinguish from mainstream indie.  I suppose that there's some truth to that, but there is a lot of life still in pure pop, Colin Clary's bands and the bands on Shelflife, for example.

Also, I get to take some pleasure in seeing a Pitchfork article referring to a Wolfie album as, "one of-- if you ask me-- the best records of the nineties," since in the nineties they put up a review of a Wolfie album wherein they make fun of teenaged me for giving them a good review.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

KharBevNor:
I read as much as I could and remain interested, the whole of page one and a skim through the rest. I still don't get why it appeals to people at all. Indeed, certain passages that on reflection must be praise read to me as blatant attacks on the whole idea. I did make a serious effort to go through without my mental summary being "bland, boring, passionless childish music for bland, boring, passionless childish people", but that phrase all but cropped up in the article.

One thing I did note is that I love Syd Barret and appreciate what Kinks i've heard, and I can't see a similiarity, though I might have misunderstood that part of it.

Dara:
there are always so many charged feelings on the internet when people talk about pitchfork.. <_<

anyway yeah, it was a good summary.

Garcin:

--- Quote from: KharBevNor ---One thing I did note is that I love Syd Barret and appreciate what Kinks i've heard, and I can't see a similiarity, though I might have misunderstood that part of it.
--- End quote ---


I found the article pretty . . . incoherent.  A pretty useful list of indie-pop inspirations with an ass-load of words in between, that somehow managed not to draw links from the inspirations to modern acts like Deerhoof, AiH, the Sugarplastics.  So . . . what was the point?

And The Decemberists as professional bed-wetters?  My first reaction: huh?  My second reaction: fuck, I went into the wrong line of business.  Seriously, someone want to break this down for me -- because my mind, it's boggled.

EDIT: Conversion to English from fldskjgoiuhwtohish.

Kid Modernist:

--- Quote from: Moiche ---
I found the article pretty . . . incoherent.  I pretty useful list of indie-pop inspirations with an ass-load of words in between.
--- End quote ---


Pitchfork summed up, but I do use it anyways.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page