Topic: QC Music Blog discussion thread (Read 107820 times)

Johnny C · « **Reply #50 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 12:35 »

To you, maybe. Personally I think Prine can be trusted as much as the police.

It doesn't imply that you can't appreciate other styles any more than suggesting that you liking steak supersedes liking broccoli. However, if you give steak as an example of something you'd prefer broccoli to taste more like, one can infer that you aren't really a fan of broccoli to begin with.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #51 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 13:26 »

Please follow along with what I am actually saying instead of putting words in my mouth.

It was suggested that I will never like the blog because the content will likely always be information I am already familiar with.

I linked a Freaky Trigger article to demonstrate that I can still be entertained by something which provides me with no new information.

At no point did I suggest that the QC music blog should be similar to Freaky Trigger in content.

Spinless · « **Reply #52 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 16:59 »

Yes you did. You stated that you'd enjoy the articles if they were written in a style you liked. You then linked Freaky Trigger as an example of writing that you enjoyed. The implication is right there, whether it was intentional or not.

I like you, but you're flat out denying the events of this thread! You're a thread denialist! Next you'll tell me that we don't treat the attractive forum members any differently to the rest of us, or that the mass genocide of forum lurkers earlier this year never happened. YOU GUYS DIDN'T THINK WE WOULDN'T NOTICE? WE NOTICED! WE NOTICED ALL THOSE PEOPLE GO MISSING!

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #53 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:28 »

Quote from: Spinless on 29 Dec 2007, 16:59

Yes you did. You stated that you'd enjoy the articles if they were written in a style you liked. You then linked Freaky Trigger as an example of writing that you enjoyed. The implication is right there, whether it was intentional or not.

Yes, a STYLE that I like. A style as in, "funny", "entertaining", "amusing", "insightful", whatever. I most definitely did not suggest that the QC blog should cover Avril Lavigne.

Inlander · « **Reply #54 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:30 »

I find all the discussion here about the "purpose" of the music blog to be somewhat amusing, if a little baffling. The very first post on the blog was Jeph's Mission Statement. The pertinent sentence is this:

Quote

The mission of this blog is simply to talk about music.

I can't speak for Jeph, Tommy, or Kieffer, because I haven't discussed the blog with any of them, but in my own writing for the music blog I've never once sat down and thought "Who am I writing this for?" Perhaps I should. But my mind just doesn't work like that. I start writing something and see where it takes me, in a free-association kind of a way. The only audience I'm writing for is the audience that feels like reading my stuff. On some days that might include any one of you. On other days it might not.

The other contributors to the blog, for all I know, may have a completely different approach. Talking about some kind of unified goal or aim or audience for the blog is utterly misguided.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #55 on:** 29 Dec 2007, 17:37 »

I should think it should be implicit that any content placed for public viewing should be intended to be enjoyable for somebody. Not that you should specifically think about "who" will enjoy reading what you're writing, but that you shouldn't submit it until you've read it over a few times and seriously reached the conclusion that it is worth inflicting on people.

Example: Ever seen a poetry message board? Ever clicked on a poem by some dark gothic teenager and thought "Dear Jesus, there's simply no way that anyone in the world, ever, could enjoy reading this."?

I'm not saying that any of the QC blogs are even close to that bad, but you see my point. QC should also stand for Quality Control.

SeanBateman · « **Reply #56 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 09:48 »

I am weighing in! I think you guys write too many words! I like both of you, and the way you write, but no way am I gonna be arsed to read about a band I already don't really care about for 10k words, especially not in that tiny ass type that Tommy inexplicably uses.

I feel like, since the blog replaced the old Recommended Listening page, maybe instead of just jerkin it about music you really like, you should talk about music in a way that is accessible to people who do not already listen to the music you like? And maybe instead of jumping right into multi part retrospectives on entire movements in music, you could just write about some shit you are listening to and other people might want to hear in a way that is approachable? Approachable doesn't mean badly written!

Like that Will Oldham review! That was cool, Tommy! That was some cool shit!

Johnny C · « **Reply #57 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 09:53 »

I think the problem right now is there isn't a balance of the longer pieces with the shorter ones. On the first page of the blog is Jeph's "How To Enjoy Alive 2007" which is really brief and the Oldham bit which is basically a medium-length review, but the remainder of them are lengthy pieces.

SeanBateman · « **Reply #58 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 09:59 »

Yeah that is mostly what I mean. The occasional really long thing is totally cool, especially after a long series of short shit! But right now most of the stuff that shows up on there is realllllly long form, and since at least one of those is a series of articles, that is a lot of words! Text is really hard to read through, especially when dealing with so few image breaks. It's more like reading essays than music journalism. I ain't care about your thesis on early 90's indie rock!

Also tommy. Really, that font? Cmon.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #59 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 10:12 »

Quote from: Dirk Hopeless on 30 Dec 2007, 09:48

maybe instead of jumping right into multi part retrospectives on entire movements in music, you could just write about some shit you are listening to and other people might want to hear in a way that is approachable?

SeanBateman · « **Reply #60 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 10:19 »

Quote from: tommydski on 30 Dec 2007, 10:06

Like I said, different strokes for different folks.

No dude that font just makes it hard to read the shit you write. It is not a stroke for a folk, it is just fucking obnoxious.

Spinless · « **Reply #61 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 11:33 »

Tommy's font is fine, fix your browser settings.
Long post are great, get off the crack. If I wanted to see more things like the short post, I'd read the music forums.

Johnny C · « **Reply #62 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 11:49 »

Long posts are great but there is a place for the short ones outside of this forum. A few of them are good posts but would not make very good forum topics.

Spinless · « **Reply #63 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 13:42 »

Anything I can see Harry or Tommy posting in a 'short' post could easily be any number of their forum post. Remember, they were writing before the music blog started, and they were posting it all right here. Their long post, which are usually packed with information you'd struggle to find anywhere else, are far more useful. But long post are time consuming!
We can't have it both ways. Those guys are writing, for free, because they enjoy it. They enjoy the way they're doing things, they enjoy the way they are writing. You either appreciate it and be thankful, or you keep your mouth shut until something comes along that you CAN enjoy and maybe talk about a little. Harry writes like Harry, Tommy writes like Tommy, I wouldn't have them any other way. I'd actually like to see Kieffer and Jeph write something with a little more substance for the blog.

Jackie Blue · « **Reply #64 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 13:44 »

Quote from: Spinless on 30 Dec 2007, 13:42

You either appreciate it and be thankful, or you keep your mouth shut

If this is the mandate, then this thread should not exist, or should be renamed to "Tell Us What You Like About The Music Blog".

Inlander · « **Reply #65 on:** 30 Dec 2007, 15:41 »

Quote from: Dirk Hopeless on 30 Dec 2007, 09:48

since the blog replaced the old Recommended Listening page

Whoa, really? I didn't know that.

Johnny C · « **Reply #66 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 00:59 »

Quote from: Spinless on 30 Dec 2007, 13:42

You either appreciate it and be thankful, or you keep your mouth shut until something comes along that you CAN enjoy and maybe talk about a little.

Daz, I understand what you're saying, but you've phrased it in a manner which completely defeats the notion of constructive criticism.

I think I've already covered that I like the Chapel Hill series, and if you have to press me I'd say that, offhand, Kieffer's live review of Wilco a while back was right on the money.

And this wouldn't be the first time in forum history that a thread deviated from its strict origins, guys.

jeph · « **Reply #67 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 01:21 »

Quote from: Inlander on 30 Dec 2007, 15:41

Quote from: Dirk Hopeless on 30 Dec 2007, 09:48
since the blog replaced the old Recommended Listening page

Whoa, really? I didn't know that.

Yeah that was kind of the whole point! I figured it would be more interesting and more useful to people who read QC to get more updates from different people whose opinions I respect in addition to myself. So far I think it has worked quite well. The blog is getting pretty decent traffic too- over 100,000 hits this month, which is none too shabby.

Inlander · « **Reply #68 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 06:51 »

Well in that case I might try to do more straight-ahead record reviews in future to replicate in some way the recommended listening page. Like the Clap Your Hands review, I guess.

Johnny C · « **Reply #69 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 08:43 »

Quote from: jeph on 31 Dec 2007, 01:21

over 100,000 hits this month, which is none too shabby.

Holy shit!

Sometimes I forget just how popular QC actually is.

jeph · « **Reply #70 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 13:43 »

Quote from: Inlander on 31 Dec 2007, 06:51

Well in that case I might try to do more straight-ahead record reviews in future to replicate in some way the recommended listening page. Like the Clap Your Hands review, I guess.

I specifically invited you guys because I figured you could write whatever you felt like and it would be good reading. Just do your thing!

jimbunny · « **Reply #71 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 14:34 »

And it is good reading! Harry and Tommy, you both write in a style I find lucid, witty, and informative. If you were writing for a professional publication, I would advise a quick trip to the editor's office (and, indeed, in a professional setting this would most likely be mandatory anyway) to clean up some phrasing. But for a blog, I feel you are doing an amazing job. I really can't believe the time and effort that you are putting into this, completely voluntarily.

There, that's all that really needs to be said in that vein.

imagist42 · « **Reply #72 on:** 31 Dec 2007, 19:43 »

Frankly, Jeph, I take it as a personal offense that Sound of Silver did not make your #1. Being that I am gay for James Murphy and all.

jeph · « **Reply #73 on:** 01 Jan 2008, 16:13 »

i hate to tell you dude but he is married

to a lady

casull · « **Reply #74 on:** 01 Jan 2008, 16:19 »

Man, I find myself wishing I could write an article on a band or style that is cool, yet outside the pitchfork pantheon.

Instead, all I have to offer is my comprehensive knowledge of texas/contest style fiddling. I guess my target audience would be people who want to have more obscure music than their friends as a fashion statement, because as far as I can tell there are about two people ever who care about contest fiddling other than the people who do it.

imagist42 · « **Reply #75 on:** 01 Jan 2008, 16:21 »

Quote from: jeph on 01 Jan 2008, 16:13

i hate to tell you dude but he is married

to a lady

that does not stop him from having a secret mister in the closet

jeph · « **Reply #76 on:** 01 Jan 2008, 16:27 »

if he shows you any unreleased remixes of his stuff you have to upload them here

imagist42 · « **Reply #77 on:** 02 Jan 2008, 22:59 »

oh he shows mixes of his stuff if you know what i mean

i dont think theyd be appropriate to post though

yamaha2k3 · « **Reply #78 on:** 02 Jan 2008, 23:55 »

I know I'm a little late but I'm glad to see The Field made it in the best albums of 2007 list. From Here We Go Sublime has got to be one of my top favorite albums of all time.

jeph · « **Reply #79 on:** 05 Jan 2008, 18:20 »

That's just HITS, not pageviews, though.

It's still pretty popular- the blog index got almost 3,000 pageviews just in the last three days. The RL blog is bigger than >90% of all webcomics.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #80 on:** 08 Jan 2008, 11:42 »

i forgot the music blog existed. i read something on it once...it was pretty good, whatever it was.

i'll try to remember to check it out more regularly.

imagist42 · « **Reply #81 on:** 10 Jan 2008, 00:03 »

I can't find a decent place to say this but I feel the need to say it so I figure here's as good a place as any.

Why didn't anyone tell me that Battles really are as good as everyone told me they are? You jerks.

Inlander · « **Reply #82 on:** 10 Jan 2008, 05:04 »

Why didn't everyone tell you they were good, just like everyone told you they were . . .

. . . Wait, what?

Spinless · « **Reply #83 on:** 10 Jan 2008, 05:59 »

I really don't like it when I can't tell whether somebody is a genius, or incredibly dim.

Scandanavian War Machine · « **Reply #84 on:** 10 Jan 2008, 11:31 »

can't it be both?

imagist42 · « **Reply #85 on:** 10 Jan 2008, 14:25 »

Quote from: Scandanavian War Machine on 10 Jan 2008, 11:31

can't it be both?

Right. I mean, I crafted that sentence with brilliant love and care for maximum subtlety and "huh?" effect, and yet for some reason I never before picked up on the utter fact that I ought to be listening to Battles. A lot.

Trillian · « **Reply #86 on:** 10 Jan 2008, 20:44 »

I have been lurking these forums since a QC forum existed, and up until today I have not really contributed (because apparently I am a bad person). Hello change!

I know I am a bit late on this subject, but I just wanted to state that I really appreciate what you guys are doing with your blog. I think what I enjoy about it is that it isn't really like most of the other music blogs that I read or come across mainly because I enjoy the fact that there are four distinct viewpoints and that shows in each of your posts. It is entertaining, and even if I already know the content I find that it is a pleasure just reading what you have to say about it. You aren't professional writers. Great! I read other blogs/magazines/forums/whatever for different reasons. I read your blog because it is informative, funny, and I get the distinct impression that you are writing because you love music and that you enjoy trying to get other people to see why. And frankly, I adore that. I don't understand the point of withholding what I know because someone may not appreciate it as much as I think they should. Who the fuck cares? I love it so I am going to tell people about it, and if they don't love it, well then I guess it is their loss. Anyway, this has become far more stream of consciousness than I initially intended. I just wanted to say thanks, mainly because reading through the thread made me feel all negative like, and I prefer to just appreciate what is good. So rock on.

Inlander · « **Reply #87 on:** 10 Jan 2008, 22:00 »

Thanks! However I do think it'd be good to have at least one female contributor to the blog.

Also, Dirty Three: Part 3 should be up soon. Won't be as long as Part 2, but I think it has some useful things to say.

Inlander · « **Reply #88 on:** 11 Jan 2008, 03:52 »

Good idea, broach the topic with J-dizzle.

Inlander · « **Reply #89 on:** 11 Jan 2008, 06:06 »

Just remember, you've gotta tell it like it is if you wanna tell it to JePhat.

jeph · « **Reply #90 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 19:03 »

I prefer to be referred to as Tha Notoriouz JRPH.

I am always open to new writer suggestions!

est · « **Reply #91 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 19:07 »

Jrph would you like a writer who goes to trashy Sydney dance clubs, drinks copiously and then writes reviews based on what he can remember of them the next day?

I could also review other things, I guess.

jeph · « **Reply #92 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 19:08 »

That could be pretty funny!

I think you would have to go for max hilarity with that kind of article.

Inlander · « **Reply #93 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 19:17 »

Every third sentence would have to contain the phrase FUCK YEAH!!!

est · « **Reply #94 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 19:24 »

I would probably have to make more notes about what people were wearing and how douche-y they were acting than the music.

I'm going to see the Bang Gang this Saturday night at a really seedy place. I'll try to capture something, at least.

jeph · « **Reply #95 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 19:55 »

Also everything has to be written with a backwoods Aussie inflection.

"OLLRIOGHT YOU BLAWKES, HEAH'S WOT I DID LAHST NOIGHT"

CROIKEY

tommydski · « **Reply #96 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 20:00 »

I asked a bunch of female music nerds and none of them seemed to think they could do it.

MusicScribbles · « **Reply #97 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 20:08 »

Maybe you should hold tryouts in these Musical Fora?

Inlander · « **Reply #98 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 20:10 »

Dirty Three: part 3 is up.

I think I'll do some plain ol' record reviews for a while now.

hannahrochelle · « **Reply #99 on:** 13 Jan 2008, 22:23 »

I write articles on bands for http://www.fasterlouder.com.au under the username "ragdoll". But I guess its more talking about the band itself than the music they make. Unless I'm writing a review of something.

Link to stuff: http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/people/ragdoll/#pubPortfolio

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: QC Music Blog discussion thread (Read 107820 times)

Spinless

SeanBateman

SeanBateman

SeanBateman

Spinless

Spinless

Spinless

tommydski