Barbra Streisand
Guilty Pleasures

Columbia
2005
D
Reviewed by: Thomas Inskeep
Reviewed on: 2005-09-28



Posted 09/28/2005 - 10:19:18 AM by boilingboy:
 What, exactly is the point of reviewing this mainstream, middle-of the-road crap on Stylus? What?!
 
Posted 09/28/2005 - 10:27:37 AM by wmdavidson:
 Is Stylus planning to review the new Paul McCartney? (That's not sarcasm, I'm really curious.) It's good stuff, but god knows Pitchfork won't be touching it.
 
Posted 09/28/2005 - 10:36:58 AM by AlfredSoto:
 Cuz it's fun, boilingboy! Watch out: the Big Bad Mainstream will get you if you're not careful.
 
Posted 09/28/2005 - 02:42:17 PM by boilingboy:
 Really? Fun for whom? Certainly not the readers of Stylus, who come to this site for reviews on music that's mostly under the radar of People magazine's record reviews. The Stylus writers perhaps? Barbra Streisand...not even for kitch value. Please save your woefully un-guilty pleasures for your iPod.
 
Posted 09/28/2005 - 04:46:02 PM by KlausFraktal:
 I'm surprised this isn't Album of the Week.
 
Posted 09/28/2005 - 08:55:44 PM by TheBrad:
 Burn?
 
Posted 09/28/2005 - 11:29:35 PM by JohnCameron:
 Stylus SHOULD review the new Paul McCartney. It has the "hip producer" factor going for it, not to mention the "aging Beatle" factor.
 
Posted 09/29/2005 - 02:16:45 AM by IanMathers:
 boilingboy, you are not a mindreader and you should stop trying to be one. All the other readers don't need you paternalistically speaking for them. I don't know if anyone's doing McCartney, wm, but I'd kind of like to see Matt Weiner take a crack at it, given his past writing on Paul.
 
Posted 09/29/2005 - 09:04:08 AM by JoshLove:
 or Alfred!
 
Posted 09/29/2005 - 11:20:18 AM by boilingboy:
 First of all, I never mentioned Paul MacCarney. As far as that goes, Macca is certainly valid material. Secondly, my suspicians are confirmed: The only ones defending the ridiculous idea of a Barbra Streisand review are other Stylus writers. If you can't see the differnnce between MacCartney and Barbra Streisand, then perhaps you need to study your rock history. Thirdly, isn't the stated purpose of these blog responses supposed to be for readers' feedback? What are the club writers doing here all the time? Before you get all knee-jerk about the whole mainstream vs. indie irony, maybe you should get your own shit together.
 
Posted 09/29/2005 - 02:05:47 PM by IanMathers:
 I'm sorry you have problems reading, boiling, since the McCartney stuff is pretty clearly directed at wmdavidson. The comments are supposed to be here for dialogue. It's not as if those of us who write here are supposed to be excluded from that. I had as little to do with this review as you did.
 
Posted 09/29/2005 - 05:49:32 PM by wmdavidson:
 Yeah, um, I didn't mean to imply an artistic correlation between Macca and Streisand one way or the other. He just popped into my head as another arist likely to receive knee-jerk dismissal from defensive hipsters like b-boy.
 
Posted 09/29/2005 - 08:39:54 PM by matos_wk:
 boilingboy, did you bother reading the site's mission statement? it says: "Our agenda at Stylus is to have no agenda. We love music and we want to tell you about that music. The music we love might be pop or rock or jazz or dance or alternative; it might be from a major label or it might be from somebody's bedroom. It doesn't matter to us . . . "
 
Posted 09/30/2005 - 11:26:33 AM by boilingboy:
 Good point about the lack of agenda at sylus. However, that's a cowardly disclaimer: You take no responsibility for taste or lack thereof. By reviewing something as completely irrelevant as the new Barbra Steisand album, and making comparisons to it's equally irrelevant predecessor, you are taking a stand that this music matters when it was only created for soccer moms to begin with. This is not some anti-mainstream rhetoric. There are plenty of worth popular, mainstream artists that still deserve attention. My point is that you either stand behind what you champion, as part of the fabric of your publication, or you don't. Is it really so different then your Top Ten feature? I remember several times when readers objected to lazy, ill-informed top ten features, only to have the writers deny it was anymore than one writer's subjective fluff. is it good music, or is it just your favorite? In that case, why should anyone even read it? I remember the Eighties, and what we were forced to listen to on the radio while while wonderful artists languished in obscurity and near-poverty. It isn't funny. By the way Stylus Writers Clique, the mission statement says that the review blog was created for readers.
 
Posted 09/30/2005 - 11:33:12 AM by boilingboy:
 My own disclaimer: IO happen to think there is some true writing talent here on Stylus, especially Alfred Soto. More than once I have been moved by a review or feature.
 
Posted 09/30/2005 - 04:13:15 PM by AlfredSoto:
 I don't want to get nasty, boilingboy, especially after saying such nice things about me, so I'll be brief. Did it ever occur to you that the critic might LIKE Streisand and Gibb? This review was not an example of ironic, indie-kid snarkiness. He is, to quote you, standing behind (and in front too) stuff he champions.
 
Posted 09/30/2005 - 08:49:04 PM by ckramer:
 You stylus writers critism indie elitism but can you not see your guilty of the same thing. You think you're above boilingboy and that's wrong and against your "everyone has their own taste mantra". If stylus and thomas inkeep think it's a worthwhile thing to do for him go on giving c's and d's to the latest wal-mart album, fine, it's your website. But just because boiling boy doesn' t appreciate doesn't make him a defensive indie kid, we know nothing about his tastes. You, the stylus writers, are the mean-spirited music elitist in this exchange.
 
Posted 09/30/2005 - 08:50:22 PM by ckramer:
 sorry, i should proof read..
 
Posted 11/16/2005 - 09:16:35 PM by Andrew_C:
 With this and Mariah Carey, stylus has truly let me down.