The (indie) Kids Are(n’t) Alright.

By: Nick Southall

Posted 12/20/2005 - 07:26:03 AM by Justedieu:
 Everybody just stared at me 'cos I couldn't stop myself from laughing when I saw what you had to say about Interpol. Damn you Nick Southall for writing such great stuff! And the entire article is good too. BTW, please explain what owning a Girls Aloud record (and liking it of course) says about me, for as I don't live in the UK I cannot see by myself.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 07:46:21 AM by wmdavidson:
 Mental note: Never disagree with Stylus unless I want to see retaliation in the form of a half-baked hypothetical psychoanalysis of my sex life.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 07:57:30 AM by wmdavidson:
 I mean, mocking its readers is nothing new for Stylus, but spending an entire column attempting to emasculate a SPECIFIC reader, BY NAME? Come on, that's just low.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 08:21:26 AM by ColinCooper:
Posted 12/20/2005 - 09:40:45 AM by MoldyMan:
 you dont seem to answer any of the questions tintin asks but instead just tell us that the reason he asks them is cos he's a sexually repressed indie snob.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 10:11:41 AM by Pillow:
 "you dont seem to answer any of the questions tintin asks but instead just tell us that the reason he asks them is cos he's a sexually repressed indie snob." Isn't that enough?
Posted 12/20/2005 - 10:35:33 AM by wmurch3:
 I do find it strange that you guys forfeit any pop sensibilites when reviewing movies. I'm pretty sure 80% of your readers couldn't see half the movies you review even if they wanted to. I'm not knocking you for it, as I think we need more sites calling attention to these films, but it is odd how you devote so much time to Top 40 music and not top box office fare. Not only that, most of the movies you review are rated either A or B with very little getting below a B. I find it kind of hard to believe that all these movies are A or B quality. Anyways, I enjoy the site and I think you have some great writers. Keep up the good work!
Posted 12/20/2005 - 12:14:18 PM by ghillz:
 I don't particularly MIND Stylus liking all this pop stuff... 'Tis a bit disillusioning, sure enough: when I started reading the stuff here I thought this was my exciting new passport into the land of the alternative'n'cool - ow you're listening to Kelly Clarkson? But I can tolerate it. What I DON'T like, however, is when it trots out the same old boring uppity stuff about why it's okay to like Girls Aloud or whoever. You don't have to excuse it anymore - everyone has the point. (And obviously tintin1000 was the easiest person to take the piss out of because he/she has mentioned the what's-so-artistic-about-sex thing, and then the how-do-you-pick-your-favourite-song-by-X-artist thing, which are pretty easy to argue with.) However, that was pretty funny in places. A weekly column in which people send you their favourite bands and you work out what that says about them, perhaps?
Posted 12/20/2005 - 01:18:48 PM by srkenney:
 I know that I've been giving certain people around here a hard time for writing about the garbage the choose to write about, but I'm not in my early, middle, or even late teens. I am not in the process of developing an identity, musical or otherwise, and I happen to have a very healthy sex life with a woman who makes all my fantasies seem tame and underreaching by comparison. The only reason I give anyone around here a hard time is the same reason I bother checking this site every morning - because I like to read about music, and you guys do a really good job making it interesting. And I think this place has the potential to be the very best online music site on the whole porn-infested internet. So I suppose it's like when your parents hit you with a phone book after you yet again show up to a family funeral high on peyote... YOUR FATHER AND I ARE DISAPPOINTED IN THE CHOICES YOU MAKE. You guys have such potential! Also, country is really fucking boring.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 01:56:46 PM by PeterIa:
 I like the message of the article. But calling the guy out personally like that doesn't seem too classy. Still a great point, message wise, and I liked it.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 02:00:33 PM by Noel_Diddy:
 There is an awesome best songs of the year list at check it out! Their #5 single: 'Sex is Gay' by the Indie 15-year-olds! Rad!
Posted 12/20/2005 - 03:32:02 PM by theghostrobot:
 One of the best critiques of rockism (or indie-ism in this case) that I've read all year. It really is easier to make an identity by liking unpopular things. Great job. Sasha Frere-Jones should watch his ass, for the kids are coming up from behind.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 03:55:31 PM by pabanks46:
 Nick is no Freud of the indie world, try as he may. And calling out a reader w/ no actual name in a column that has your ACTUAL NAME w/ a link that goes to a pic of you and your interests, personal history is NOT low class. Please. I hate how people on here are rude then suprised when it is returned in kind. The sad thing about this article is that Nick purports to know anything (assuming, which is a big assumption, the whole thing is not tongue in cheek) about anyone's sex life based on what they listen to. Please. On top of that, the reader above is right. Stylus' attempt to push the "if you like it, its good" line is old. Just because you like it doesn't make your like of it valid. Some dude loves to listen to farts in the apartment above me. So fucking what, farts are not as good as Paid in Full and if he tried to give me his meta-critique of it and all the esoteric, hyper-subjective rationalizations about why it is good, I'd just flip him off and tell him he was a degenerate, solipsistic turd burgler, because I believe in telling the objective truth, where there is some. In that spirit, btw, Nick: stop worrying about where, if, how your reader use their dicks. Keep thinking ppl that laugh at your Fannypack album have it wrong.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 04:30:16 PM by akiyama076:
 i dont get it. is tintin1000 a virgin?
Posted 12/20/2005 - 05:25:53 PM by acid_puppy:
 There is waaaay too much useless drama on this website.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 05:59:21 PM by miamot:
 this is priceless, pot:kettle elitism at its best
Posted 12/20/2005 - 08:06:48 PM by shucks:
 I enjoyed the article very much. But since the article opposes adolescents-turning-their-indie-noses-up-at-pop, it ends up in the opposite corner of adults-freeing-their-mind. Which probably has a lot to do with grwoing up, I'm sure. And is key to getting to know a lot more music and by extension having more fun.... But the missing concluding paragraph seems to be about what happens to 'the music / identity nexus' when your music taste & appreciation ability goes multicultural. In short: If you like everything, does that say anything about you? Can you draw anything like a meaningful identity from that? Apart from being this really openminded guy who likes music? And since you can't say who you are without saying who you aren't... who's that then? People who don't bother about stuff like 'quality'? Who'll listen to BAD pop just because that's what their local radio station plays? I know I can't be a teenager forever but it was more fun when I turned my nose at people who didn't know the Gang of Four from... well Chinese communists. And coming out wouldn't have been the same (as thrilling) without borrowing heavily from the revolutionary and world-coming-to-an-end stylings of The Clash's London Calling.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 09:35:54 PM by dave_pullar:
 I'm not sure why anyone expects an e-zine to reflect their views. That's what your blog's for, kids. I read sites like Stylus to discover stuff that I'm not aware of - the good and the bad. The only thing I demand from a site like Stylus is that the selections keep being interesting and the writing keeps being up to a high standard. And Nick's contributed to the second-half of that.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 10:20:17 PM by :
 i hate this article. but before i get into a rant, i shall tell you all the "rules" which i relied upon to come to the conclusion that this article is a pile of self-help-book lingo-retardism. (a) this uses analytical terms improperly understood by its author (b) i understand that this has a tongue-in-cheek quality about it but it also purports to mean something while saying "it doesn`t mean anything at all"..a cop-out (c) this is a lame attempt at justifying why you`re too lazy to examine & find the truth to why our genuine recording artists are better than madeover top 40 pap , with the "we love pop" stylus mission statement as a sort of pre-emptive strike against criticism. And...and... oh shit, no actually I liked this article. I can`t be bothered re-jigging the whole tintin rant to work against it. But congrats to tintin to inspire this piece in the first place...I mean you log on and lazily abuse your fave website with such passion that get taken REALLY seriously is fully applaudable. May I oneday find my inner unselfconscious superbitch and do the same.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 11:36:22 PM by KlausFraktal:
 Hey cool, a condescending strawman argument! Thanks, Nick Southall, for proving all the worst assumptions about this site. Your bitter, nearly libelous rant is as vacuous as the commentary that you pass off as reviews. But don't let me stop these sad proceedings, I can spew out this pseudo-psychoanalytical crap too: It seems the post-graduate popists that dominate Stylus Magazine, seeking to protect themselves emotionally and justify their failure to realize any of their youthful dreams, retreat into a self-consciously ironic disdain for art as nothing more than base sensory stimuli. As this position neither requires them to reveal something about themselves nor bother to write arguments that might be more vulnerable to meaningful discourse than their empty rants that they justify with a defensive idealization of subjectivity, they are capable of keeping a cold distance that allows them to affirm their cold, self-congratulatory, postmodern detachment via the dismissal of any opinionated dissenter as being 'immature' and, most certainly, frustratingly undersexed. Indeed, art, to the Stylus writer, cannot have a subject. Like the sensations that it stimulates, it is empty and meaningless. If one engages in the laughable act of attempting to derive personal insight from art, or even more embarassing, if one expresses a distate for mainstream rap's hate-mongering and glorification of violence, one is merely a pathetic indie elitist, embroiled in the confused hysteria of attempting to grasp some illusory identity. For the Stylus writer, if Prussian Blue were to release an aurally pleasing record, it should be hailed as good as any other, and anyone raises objections or expresses distate for the subject matter is merely chasing phantoms. Of course, to this psychoanalytical eye, this ruse is transparent. The Stylus writer, bitter and inept, merely puts on this show to protect himself from the scathing criticism of the 'Comments' section. Rather than dare to examine art on honest terms, they retreat into an infantile state in which objects are merely judged in terms of their immediate sensory utility. Propped up by an underdeveloped worship of subjectivity and a wholly nihilistic approach to art, they amble clumsily in this state of intellectual retardation, bitterly lashing out at dissenters for, ironically, 'being immature.' For this sad species of art critic, personal failure is inverted into an unjustifiably idealized 'maturity' founded upon three hallmarks of psychologically defensive posturing: emotional neutrality, intellectual evasiveness, and an adolescent embrace of kitsch as a means of affirming their narrowminded artistic nihilism. For the Stylus writer, their personal failures have led them to affirm their existence as mere shells, as, unable to grasp a personally satisfying identity amidst the demands and disappointment of adulthood, they quixotically seek to restore the pre-idealistic perspective of childhood, in which their undeveloped selves were sufficiently sustained by the fulfillment of base appetites, oblivious to the far greater demands of a world that asked them to be more than hairy bipeds. Unfortunately, as their defensive flailing reveals, this second childhood is anything but pure, and as they see others trying to find satisfaction deeper and more human than what the immediate senses offer, they spew their condescending bile in a desperate effort to affirm their terrified, cripplingly mundane existence. For the Stylus writer, the only higher pleasure offered by this world is the poisoned fruit of schadenfreude, and if anyone suggests otherwise, then... why... they're just taking everything too seriously. And if your reaction to the above was 'bullshit', then you now know where I'm coming from.
Posted 12/20/2005 - 11:47:12 PM by joeyjeremiah:
 In reply to Shucks, who asked: "If you like everything, does that say anything about you?"_ _ There was a soulseeking essay here recently which discussed the idea of bands having "myths" associated with them. It was argued that It was argued that, as a young person searching for an indentity to use in life, the myths associated with bands were helpful. You believed the myth, and you altered your identity by it. It was argued that those who grew up and no longer had use for music were probably in it mostly for the myths that helped them through their teens, and that those who kept an active interest in music were always there mostly for the music itself. They didn't only care about the myth behind the band or singer, they also were fascinated by the music itself. That totally relates to this debate. And someone who likes everything just doesn't need a myth anymore. Their identity will be shaped by other stuff and not an alliegence to a band or singer. Notice how your parent's tastes in new music often seem random? They like something but aren't fussed about something else and there seems to be no common thread. Well, they don't know anything about the bands, they just appreciate the sound. Maybe they're the most healthy music fans. Pop is sometimes good and sometimes crap, and independent is sometimes good and sometimes crap. Both have a place.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 12:00:20 AM by KlausFraktal:
 And to extend that with a serious response: Throwing around psychoanalysis is bullshit. Here's the reason why I derive no pleasure from the vast majority of Top 40 pop: it's predictable and boring. To get pleasure from something, it has to be exciting for me, and Top 40 pop does not do that. AND THAT is all part of growing up. That is part of the plasticity of the mind. As we are bombarded with more and more of a similar stimuli, we adapt to them, and they become boring to us. Wasn't that the whole original basis of this series anyway? I mean, I'm certain that I'll be completely fucking tired of indie and experimental whatever in a couple of years. I'm already starting to get there, but I honestly don't think that it exists on an equal hierarchy with stuff made for 14 year-old girls, just as a think the crappy prog that I listened to when I was 16 is also a slightly higher step up. It was, simply, music designed for a more demanding mind, and as such, the increased degree of complexity, thought, and craft that went into its creation kept me from being bored as I grew and developed into a more interesting person. And to that end, I do think there's some truth to my bullshit rant above. When I eventually collapse into myself and start liking crap purely in terms of background noise, it's not going to be some sort of grand enlightened ascension, it's just going to be me getting to a point where I'm so bored by everything, it doesn't really matter what I listen to anymore. Is that really something to aspire to? Call me a crazy idealist, but I don't think so. That's why so many mishappen adults long to be young again.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 12:19:49 AM by joeyjeremiah:
 Hey Klaus, that first reply was hilarious and well written :) But one thing: surely you concede that tintin1000's angry rant against the inclusion of pop in the 50 best singles was a bit unjustified? I mean, Girls Aloud isn't just made for 14 year old girls, it's also made for twentysomething graduate music critics! I'd say tintin's comments, as with a lot of the others, were based on incorrect assumptions and revealed some badly hidden emotional inadequacies in their fuming rage. I mean, shit, it's a list about CD singles on an e-zine - no reason to take it personally. Nick was right to point out that getting angry and abusive about this points very directly to a juvenile need to hate on pop music. Why? Maybe becuase they're sexually confused teen snobs looking for an identity.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 12:28:12 AM by pabanks46:

Klaus pwns. Period.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 12:34:11 AM by pabanks46:
 Also, Nick inserted the sex part. tintin simply stated that, given sex's topical omnipresence in pop music, that simply fucking is not art, and neither is music intended to get you fucking. tintin saying that does nothing to betray any kind of blue balls, or whatever. Nick simply decided to take a shot at a reader. Well, great. Go to the indie room on SLSK and I'll call you an @55©|0\/\/|\|. Until then, keep in mind: it's the internet.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 12:36:48 AM by KlausFraktal:
 Well, I've got two somewhat separate responses: a) I think Stylus does have something of a responsibility to their target demographic, and I think they could do a much much better job arguing why Top 40 pop stands along art-rock beyond the subjectivity fallback. People don't read these e-zine editorials to affirm their identity or whatever. They (or at least I) come in search of interesting ideas and arguments to expand my appreciation of the discussed work. And so, when you fail to adequately justify why you think a fairly homogenous Lindsey Lohan song is ranked higher (or even on the same list) as some groundbreaking Animal Collective track, I think the readership is justified in voicing their disappointment with the quality of ideas being, let's be honest, sold to them. Granted, tintin might have gone overboard with the abusive language, but Stylus writers really have been to quick to get condescending and defensive when they should be trying to elevate the quality of their work. I mean, despite what Ian says, the subjectivity argument *isn't* sufficient. It might be enough justification for giving something a rating, but that isn't even a fraction of what criticism is all about. b) You can't really determine the tone of someone's speech over the internet. I have a naturally hyperbolic and overwrought writing style, but honestly, outside of political flame wars, I'm always being more than a little facetious. But you can't really tell that, and to that end, I'm sure tintin wasn't as legitimately angry as he might have seemed. The whole internet format just tends to encourage rambling polemics that are taken more seriously than they are intended.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 03:43:11 AM by NickSouthall:
 The whole internet format just tends to encourage rambling polemics that are taken more seriously than they are intended.

Which is precisely why this piece was written. I should just point out that I own and love records by all the bands listed in my cod-psychoanalytical breakdown, too. Except Bright Eyes, who are horrible.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 10:56:48 AM by AtariWhizKid:
 It's not that I disagree with this column, but it's a bit unfair and pretty tacky to pick apart a reader's comment using the entire power of the publication.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 11:04:24 AM by NickSouthall:
 Um, I wrote this on my own?
Posted 12/21/2005 - 11:04:48 AM by NickSouthall:
 I mean, my mum proofed it, as usual, but the words are all myn.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 01:03:03 PM by :
 Klaus, if it weren't "elitist" of me I'd recommend that you read Lyotard "The Postmodern Condition," Debord "Society of the Spectacle" and yeah maybe "A Thousand Plateaus" if you haven't for good measure. You seem like a smart guy. Music as "objectively" "bad" or "boring" as, say, Britney's has all sorts of value as a cultural artifact, regardless of whether you find the hook in "Hit Me Baby" to be catchy. There are myriad ways to appreciate music (and other forms of popular art) for reasons that extend beyond literal content. Any work of popular culture always already takes on as explicit thematic content its own context. The new way of looking is pop is as a text we can decipher. Don't you find that at all exciting, Klaus? That our own desire is always tangled up in popular representation and art is kinda fun and weird. Desire is economic. Nick definitely articulated something for me about why I can't, don't and won't privilege "indie" music over any other kind in some heirarchy of musical/artistic authenticity. I really bristle at its wimpy, whimpering sexuality. I don't know if I agree with him about Interpol, though. I think recently liking them says "I'm suburban, get into trends about 6 months later than my demographic, and would be the perfect member of an OC-focus group." But that's in the U.S.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 01:07:57 PM by NickSouthall:
 Debord yes! Deleuze no!
Posted 12/21/2005 - 02:04:07 PM by :
 I used to hate Deleuze but I love what he has to say about music.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 02:45:13 PM by vinegar:
 Excellent article! It says, and in plain English too, all the stuff there is to say against rockism, indie snobbery, etc. The psycho-analysis is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's mostly funny because it's true. Also, songs without sex in them are stupid and useless.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 03:46:46 PM by MoldyMan:
 i've really enjoyed these soul seeking articles and southall seems to be a writer i usually agree with. on the comments section people are more willing to post when they disagree rather than agree. the reason i dont like some pop is that i feel it follows a formula. sugarbabes, girls alowed, rachel stevens, kylie etc all sound exactly the same to me. it seems that sugarbabes came out a few years ago with something that sounded a bit different and now everyone copies it. its all about money and what sells. there's no artistic talent required in the members of these bands. while i can appreciate some pop i would feel silly liking it cos of those reasons. does that make me a indie elitist? i know that you can say the arcade fire and sufjan stevens sound the same for example but i like those cos i feel less silly byeing there reords. like i arnt supporting some fat cat capitalist. and i know the band thmselves have written the record as a artistic statement raher than thinking about shifting uits.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 04:49:55 PM by keyinblack:
 Oh Klaus, self-conscious irony is always so effective . . . Since you probably do believe what you typed, I have a simple question: What's wrong with hedonism? P.S. I actually did enjoy your write-up, but for maybe different reasons.
Posted 12/21/2005 - 07:17:06 PM by joeyjeremiah:
 omg jess u r like so smart
Posted 12/22/2005 - 02:46:33 AM by nescience:
 Blistering barnacles, Southall! A bit harsh and overgeneralizing and all that, though there are some nice thoughts about the whole "music as identity" bit. When I'm playing a record that I really love, like Confessions on a Dance Floor or Two Vietnamese Nuns Yelling Obscenities At Each Other While Playing Branca At 45RPM (Disc 3), and I'm reading Stylus, I think that people read this stuff because they're looking for an editorial voice with which to interact and learn, whether by personally responding or simply by listening. The so-called "Top-40 crowd" and the "Can you not see the BRILLIANCE that is Futureheads??!OMG" crowd can get along, but can we stop pointing fingers and open our ears? Maybe Madonna or Vietnamese Nuns won't appeal to you and maybe Jeff Mangum's unreleased Demos From The Barnyard won't appeal to me, but maybe we'll learn something and not spend all this stupid time fuming over what's wrong with the divisions in pop music. PS: The Mountain Goats suck, tintin. Get over it. Also, sex is a red herring. Not only in your column, but in real life. Think about that.
Posted 12/22/2005 - 10:14:05 AM by :
 don't encourage me
Posted 12/22/2005 - 10:35:18 AM by vinegar:
 Indeed. I went out and bought a red herring today, but it didn't do much for me. And it stinks up the bed.
Posted 12/22/2005 - 10:59:40 AM by fandango:
 I've got a lot of time for Stylus personally, but this article is a FUCKING DISGRACE. And unoriginal, and consisting of beating of the space, in a stable, from where a dead horse's ghost bolted two years ago. Emo kids (I don't care for the music either fwiw... I moved beyond those hormonal changes a while back) probably get more sex than pop fans these days anyway. Not fitting in is the new fitting in don'tchaknow? And have you seen the statistics for oral sex infections in the US recently? Also, how the hell does it fit in with the " Soulseeking: " sub-heading again this time?? Talk about arbitary. When I saw the front-page today and it wasn't there (it moved down to the small headlines) I honestly thought it must have just been removed for being SO SUBSTANDARD.
Posted 12/22/2005 - 11:04:01 AM by fandango:
 Seriously though... The "Soulseeking" column has suddenly turned into an catch-all-subject space for lazy blogging (with an audience). What gives? Is the US editor on holiday?
Posted 12/22/2005 - 01:41:41 PM by NickSouthall:
 Fandango, a; your first post goes some way towards proving several of the points I was satirising in the article, and b; this particular column fits in the remit of Soulseeking because it is about WHY people love music, is it not?
Posted 12/22/2005 - 03:19:47 PM by fandango:
 Fandango, a; your first post goes some way towards proving several of the points I was satirising in the article, and b; this particular column fits in the remit of Soulseeking because it is about WHY people love music, is it not? point a) you've completely lost me. Indie kids are still corny because they hate sex because they are having sex and still confused about what it all means? point b) Sure, it's about WHY people love music... It just has sweet-f-all to do with accesing music via downloading, or any other changes occuring in listening habits, or the industry because of that... I really don't understand why this isn't in "Pop Playground" or some other section. And I've clearly completely misunderstood the remit of the "Soulseeking" banner. I can't possibly be the only one?
Posted 12/22/2005 - 03:21:23 PM by fandango:
 gah. apologies for that "US editor" dig besides... that was kinda low. And the comments box ruined my formatting once again. Apologies for illegibility!
Posted 12/22/2005 - 03:29:40 PM by NickSouthall:
 From the first Soulseeking:

Soulseeking will, with luck, be a regular column on Stylus from now on, written often by myself but also contributed to by the rest of the staff here, and, who knows, maybe some guest writers too. The nature of the column? To do a bit of what the title suggests, only within ourselves rather than the endless reaches of cyberspace, in order to better understand what it is we fell in love with, and, if needs be, go a little way towards getting that feeling back.

I really did not intend Soulseeking to be about downloading, and, those first two columns and a couple since besides, it hasn't been.

I'm not saying that indie kids are corny and pop or dance kids aren't; I'm not saying that indie kids get less sex or are more obsessed with sex; I'm not saying that indie kids are more hung-up about sex - I'm saying that EVERYONE is hung-up about sex to some degree or other, and sex is kind of a funny business to start with (funny haha, not funny scary), and that, generally speaking, sex and music aren't as linked as some people think - I'm pretty sure no one slept with me because I own a rare Disco Inferno record (although playing Jeff Buckley to girls at university and then tellign them he was dead and gazing into the middle-distance was always useful...). The "sex" thing is two paras in the middle, and VERY tongue-in-cheek! I also think the level and tone of comments to this article (and the hits it's getting), plus the various emails I've had about it, also prove that it is still pretty relevent - I may not explicitly use the term, but it's about rockism, I guess.
Posted 12/22/2005 - 03:37:58 PM by fandango:
 I just realised "Soulseeking" itself is a sub-heading under Pop Playground anyway.. so my ability to read in the first place is somewhat challenged! Fair enough, I hadn't noticed the shift away from the area where *I* thought Soulseeking was grounded (geez, I hardly have time to read every article!). I still think it's badly titled if this is the case though. "it's about rockism, I guess" sorta proves my point too, as far as the dead horse impression goes. Anyway, I'm done with this - Happy Christmas! :)
Posted 12/22/2005 - 03:44:50 PM by NickSouthall:
 Have a good holiday, dude. And other assorted dude and dudette readers!
Posted 12/22/2005 - 05:23:12 PM by srkenney:
 This has been fun. I hope the next time we get to be bitchy at someone, it's you, Nick. At least you throw the ball back over the fence when we lob it into your yard. Happy Holidays to you lot, too.
Posted 12/22/2005 - 05:30:25 PM by le_lit:
 Alright, here's my take. I've come to a point where there's enough fantastic music I'm aware of but for one reason or another have had yet to seriously check out that I really can't be bothered with such "fun" but ultimately, for me, hollow and unsatisfying music as made by, say, Kelly Clarkson or Girls Aloud. I really don't give a toss what you spend your money on, and I'm not going to launch into some fantastic rant at the revelation that some of you guys really like this stuff. It simply irks me that I can't have a general dislike for mainstream pop music without being an irredeemable hipster who sits around listening to Merzbow while stroking his chin all day long. As a matter of fact, I "give into my id" on a regular basis. I love a good dance and a good hook as much as you, Nick, I've just never bought the "shut up, you're over-intellectualizing this, it's just bloody pop music" refrain that I hear so often. Many of the boys from Cologne and others have been rather dilligently erasing the pejorative of "pop" over these past few years, so I don't see much appeal music that simply doesn't engage me in any way whatsoever when I could be shaking my arse to fun music that happens to be conscious of the fact that, yes, hedonists have brains, too. Basically, this is what all that junk up there is trying to say: The fact that I, and others, dislike top-40 artists often has much less to do with inflated egos, sexual repression and a coolest-kid-on-the-block mentality than simply finding "Hollaback Girl" a chore to listen to.
Posted 12/23/2005 - 05:13:02 AM by Hone_Heke:
 This article`s probably past it`s use-by date now, meaning my post will not get read by anyone, which is good cos I like writing to my future self. I find it unfathomable that since the days of Dylan, not a single musical artist has been able to lyrically capture the worldwide public imagination to anywhere near the same degree for across the course of more than a couple of albums. Radiohead`s appeal lies far more in the music than the words as with most *huge* rock bands. Pop is dead dead dead, but as long as we keep procreating, some idiot money-doctor will continue to defibrillate the cute monster`s sick heart. Pop music has no conscience & as the future continues to evolve like it will, that is criminal. My current Japanese girlfriend is a case in point. She`s says incredibly dumb things like "I don`t rike the Chinese, they`re so poor, they are not good fashion." That`s pop music talking. I gravitate towards lyrics only when they`re clearly audible, poetic enough to be intriguing in a way to draw me further in, something very very few indie/rock bands achieve. Insert examples... Smog, Laurie Anderson. That Jay Z album Blueprint, damn, the WORST. Madvillian - BEGUILINGLY GOOD. Sufjan Stevens represents to me the borderline, his voice is great as an instrument; as a lyricist, too fey to convey, all sweet soft air and NO PASSION. (Sorry about all my SHOUTING.) I`m finding myself getting lost in modern ambient a lot lately. It`s the new classical after all, difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, but then there must have been an awful lot of 16th century composers we`ve never of heard of. Wordless music has become, for me, the next step up in my personal musical evolution. Wordless I shall henceforth become. Bye.
Posted 12/23/2005 - 07:06:05 AM by bj_randolph:
 Klaus raises an interesting, if largely unrelated to the article in question, point here that rarely gets discussed: it's impossible to convey tone/volume of voice, facial expression, had gestures, etc. in print. I've been caught forgetting this on a number of occassions when I've posted a sarcastic comment and been assaulted by another irate poster who took it seriously.

That aside, and far more importantly... Where the f--k is my boy Tintin at?!?!? No response? NONE?!?!? Do you think he just hasn't seen the article? Does anyone know him? Email him, tell him to get his ass on here and post!

Posted 12/23/2005 - 07:08:36 AM by bj_randolph:
 Blast... hand gestures.

Burns, Hutlock, whoever: talk to your webmaster and see if there's a way to incorporate an "edit post" feature in the comment board. Or are you afraid people will have second thoughts and just delete stuff outright upon further reflection, this spoiling the spotaneity of a potentially embarrassing drunken post.

Posted 12/23/2005 - 11:03:30 AM by :
 Don`t seat it randolph. We know you get so exited typing a comment that you make typos, not spelling errors that make you look like a dummy. typos are cute, mistakes that add grit to your discussion. no need to add fix-its.
Posted 12/23/2005 - 11:04:35 AM by :
 Goddamn, "Don`t SWEAT it...and we know you get EXCITED" see this gets kind of anoying dont it?
Posted 12/23/2005 - 11:05:20 AM by :
 er...annoying. duh, ship
Posted 12/23/2005 - 11:05:35 AM by :
Posted 08/11/2006 - 02:58:27 AM by Matahari:
 This article is bullshit. Congratulations Nick.