indesertum
Stylish Dinosaur
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 17,396
- Reaction score
- 3,888
well it's not like ppl think of it as indie music just because pitchfork said so... highly doubt anybody even read it
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
well it's not like ppl think of it as indie music just because pitchfork said so... highly doubt anybody even read it
I enjoyed Carrie Brownstein's blog on the Bearding of indie. http://www.npr.org/blogs/monitormix/..._skidding.html
I enjoyed Carrie Brownstein's blog on the Bearding of indie. http://www.npr.org/blogs/monitormix/..._skidding.html
Her own band was crap, and she ignored bands like No Age, Times New Viking, Fucked Up, **** Buttons, Japandroids, Lightning Bolt, Akron/Family, Hella, etc. Pitchfork has covered all of these bands that I have mentioned in addition to the easy listening side of indie rock, in addition to a fair amount of other genres. To say you don't like Pitchfork's coverage is to say you don't like contemporary music in general.
Her own band was crap, and she ignored bands like No Age, Times New Viking, Fucked Up, **** Buttons, Japandroids, Lightning Bolt, Akron/Family, Hella, etc. Pitchfork has covered all of these bands that I have mentioned in addition to the easy listening side of indie rock, in addition to a fair amount of other genres.
This is insane. Pitchfork is one voice in a rather large sea. Maybe they've improved since I stopped reading, maybe not - from what I gather, their dominant demographic remains fey white college hipsters.To say you don't like Pitchfork's coverage is to say you don't like contemporary music in general.
She doesn't mention Pitchfork at all. I didn't mention Pitchfork in reference to her column. And back when I read Pitchfork they "covered" the shite bland indie along with mainstream stuff and rap - but no one in their right mind would have claimed that the rap reviews were part of their aesthetic. Except when they used the reviews to make fun of rap.
Though in truth I've got some measure of pity for anyone who takes such a cue from a single source that "Pitchfork equals contemporary music."
I only mentioned Pitchfork because you mentioned it first. They were separate posts, but they were consecutive.
Erm... no. She's discussing the dominant mode of indie for the last, say, six or seven years. (I blame Conor Oberst.) Obviously Brownstein doesn't think all of it has been **** - and she even compliments some of the blander acts - and points out the areas of non-mainstream music that have been wild and experimental.Her paragraph covers my complaint, but then it equally nullifies her. What is she lamenting? That the "indie rock" genre is so diverse that it is not much of a descriptor?
But it's just so pathetic. Not only that your idea of contemporary music (presumably good contemporary music) is received from external sources, but that you think one particular source suffices as a source.Don't get snide just because you've lost touch.