That might be true. If it is, then I'd call bullshit, too. However, it could be that he doesn't particularly like the music, and he thinks the reasons he doesn't like it are the ones he mentioned in the review. You're right, though, he never really makes it clear which it is.
I remember Mr P reviewing Ben Folds' Rockin' the Suburbs, which I would give a 4/5. If I remember correctly, he said it was about as good as pop music gets, but he thought it was pretty lame and gave it a 2 or 2.5/5. Essentially, he dismissed all of pop music with a wave of the hand. I gotta wonder about that.
-------------------------------------------------- To create man was a fine and original idea, but to add the sheep was a tautology.
Posts: 4623 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005
Originally posted by brighteyes215: That is not the job that a reviewer is given. He is supposed to review the album for what it is.
Funny, I didn't see that in the job description. I thought that's what the guy who writes the press release is supposed to do. Who enjoys reading a series of facts with no personality or insight?
quote:
Originally posted by brighteyes215: I take issue with the reviewer's lack of actual reviewing the album, rather his reviewing the implications that the album has on our society.
Magazines barely get three sentances to talk about an album. He covered that. Anything else is a bonus. As long as it's entertaining to read, that's what it is. I'm happy he at least spent the rest of the review talking about music. P4K usually spends half their reviews talking about what they watched on TV last night.
OPB brighteyes215: I take issue with the reviewer's lack of actual reviewing the album, rather his reviewing the implications that the album has on our society. Which I find to be pretentious shit anyway. But that's why he gave the album 2/5, not because of the album itself it seems.
I think the reason he chose to address the 50's stuff was because of the overt propaganda in the pipettes' formula. Advocating this no thinking stuff all the time. The pipettes told him he didn't have to think, and so he thunk. And in thinking he found the music to be waaaayy contrived (the pipettes were thinking too, on some level at least) and thus found the music to be a minor factor in the overall impact of the album. When you use music like propaganda you trivialize it.
Originally posted by vitunkrapula: [QUOTE] When you use music like propaganda you trivialize it.
Um I could argue the same damn thing. When you use reviews like propaganda you trivialize them. First of all P4K at least discusses individual tracks while that review just lumped the album all together as FUN music with the implication of political apathy and other such nonesense. Second of all when I said you review the album for what it is, I mean you review the music, not the grand design behind the music. The Pipettes can do what they want with their music. I mean if he is giving the album 2/5 because of the music, FINE, but I can't tell from reading the review whether he is because he doesn't talk about the music mostly. It seems that he is giving the 2/5 because of the I believe he used the words "hedonistic" picking and choosing with which they transpose '60's girl bands style into the modern age. Okay but if the music is good, why should that matter? Pop(and indie-pop) music is meant to be light and FUN, and if that is the aesthetic they choose, why should they be reviewed negatively because of it?! Review the music not the band.
Originally posted by brighteyes215: When you use reviews like propaganda you trivialize them.
They're reviews. They're trivial. I read them on the crapper.
quote:
Originally posted by brighteyes215: Review the music not the band.
Michael Jackson: try reviewing his next CD while not mentioning anything about Michael Jackson. I think it's a whole package. You have to consider who the people are who are bringing you this music. Otherwise, Paris Hilton would get nothing but 5/5s as her music is very expensive and subsequently flawless...yet, as many would argue, soulless and trite as it's coming from a totally useless, spoiled whore.
OPB brighteyes215: Second of all when I said you review the album for what it is, I mean you review the music, not the grand design behind the music.
Don't try to pull this metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. When you talk about music, it is impossible to ignore context. The music IS nothing but sonic vibrations. The reason that the reviewer concentrated on the grand design behind things is that that grand design was the justification (or cause, however you want to look at it) for what he thought was shitty music.
The pipettes make music that is better reviewed from a historical perspective because they don't bother to contribute anything outside of revisionism.
The rating says all it needs to about what Mr. P thinks about the music value wise. In the review, he's just explaining why he dislikes it to the tune of 2/5. Ie he is reviewing the music For What It Is(if you can't read between the lines he doesn't like it), but in the review he is tracing back and exploring what is making the music what it is.
My good music = music that I enjoy, or have fun listening to (Not FUN.). Mr. P distinguishes between the pipettes' FUN and his idea of fun, but I'm guessing a problem you have with it is that he never explains what his fun is like.
OPB brighteyes215: Second of all when I said you review the album for what it is, I mean you review the music, not the grand design behind the music.
Don't try to pull this metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. When you talk about music, it is impossible to ignore context. The music IS nothing but sonic vibrations. The reason that the reviewer concentrated on the grand design behind things is that that grand design was the justification (or cause, however you want to look at it) for what he thought was shitty music.
The pipettes make music that is better reviewed from a historical perspective because they don't bother to contribute anything outside of revisionism.
The rating says all it needs to about what Mr. P thinks about the music value wise. In the review, he's just explaining why he dislikes it to the tune of 2/5. Ie he is reviewing the music For What It Is(if you can't read between the lines he doesn't like it), but in the review he is tracing back and exploring what is making the music what it is.
My good music = music that I enjoy, or have fun listening to (Not FUN.). Mr. P distinguishes between the pipettes' FUN and his idea of fun, but I'm guessing a problem you have with it is that he never explains what his fun is like.
Um but why is it shitty music? He doesn't explain other than his crap about how the music of the 50s and early 60s contributed to some bad things. I'm pretty sure his musings are classified under "I'm a pretentious douchebag who doesn't know how to review albums." I mean yes a lot of music must be put into the correct context but that doesn't mean the music itself isn't up for trial. In this case he calls the music "pure negation," whatever that means. He himself admits that he's listened to the album many times and that it is highly enjoyable music. Listen I enjoy "serious" music as much as the next person. I mean Neutral Milk Hotel is perhaps my favorite band and their aim was not what one would call FUN. But you can't review an album negatively simply because it isn't serious music. That seems to be one of the reasons that he reviews it as he does. Some types of music are just meant to be fun. If that is the one of the only aims behind the music, it should be reviewed as such and how successfully it achieves this goal. As the beginning of the review attests, it fulfills its humble aims quite well. So why does he give the album a 2/5, it seems it is because of the points he brings up later in the review about the music promoting political apathy and antiquated ideals or whatever. Frankly, I can't believe this self-serving pretentious drivel disguised as a review passes for discussion in the first place but that's just my opinion. I believe he sums his bullshit rant up perfectly when he writes: "In my mind, this isn't music that celebrates, it negates. It extracts what it sees fit and drops it into a new time and place, essentially stripping away its original relevance for a hedonistic, spoiled one, simply because it might be "fun" to do." And there goes much of pop music and music in general with it. Dear God, can't he be stopped?!!
OPB brighteyes215: ...stripping away its original relevance for a hedonistic, spoiled one, simply because it might be "fun" to do." And there goes much of pop music and music in general with it. Dear God, can't he be stopped?!!
NO! This is NOT against pop music or music in general. Jesus. I'm guessing that he wants music to have more than one redeeming aspect. If you only concentrate on the FUN, you get a one dimensional kind of music that, even if it succeeds at being FUN (and I think mr p hinted that it failed at that when he classified the pipettes as having the essential elements of fun music down. If he thought it was really fun music he would have simply said so.), it may fail at any other criterion for good music. He's just saying FUN music does not equal good music. So called serious music may get just as bad of a rating.
If you want to be a thoughtless drone humming catchy slogans no one is going to (or should) stop you, but don't expect anyone with an ounce of sense to give you 5 stars for it.
Who's calling for a perfect rating? I've never even heard this album. I'm not commenting on the album itself, I'm commenting on the way he chose to review it. And there's little indication as to whether he considers the music terrible, because he talks very little about the actual music. If the music has the essential elements of being FUN, why isn't it fun? There's no reason given in the review other than this "negation" shit, which doesn't really explain a lot because it's indecipherable pretentiousness. Many artists pick and choose the style they want to deal in for the sake of "fun" and in the context of a new era. Even if the Pipettes may take this a step further, so what? Where does politics come in? And while the Pipettes may not be making anything new exactly, in a way they are, because updating a style for the new era is doing something new. But I don't wanna talk about the Pipettes as I said. I just can't believe how some reviewers ruin music with their idiocy.
If the music has the essential elements of being FUN, why isn't it fun?
Because it's so premeditated you can hear in the music how the pipettes blatantly tried to bottle up some sunshine and make a profit from it. They're trying to distill all the good bits (which is what mr p was getting at with the negation bit) and make good music out of body parts salvaged from the 50s and 60s. A good album is like a living organism - it has to have its own life force - not like fucking frankenstein.
How the hell can you know it ruined the music if you've never heard the music? If you don't want it to ruin the music, then don't take reviews so seriously!
I don't understand why you are bashing a review when you haven't even heard the music. If reviews should be based on the music, as you said, you're missing a big piece of the p.c.u.e.
I take issue with reviewers who don't review the music and turn their reviews into a podium for their bullshit. I think that's well evidenced by the last paragraph of the review. And I have heard some of the music off of the album, it's enjoyable music and seems to be quite fun. I mean who cares if the style has been done before, it's not as if they're stealing actual songs, they write their own music, so what's the issue? If what he says is true, then entire genre's seem to go out the window. I mean modern chamber-pop would most certainly seem suspect. And really can you honestly say that that last paragraph of the review is in any way necessary? He made his point, he thinks the music is a "negation" of the original style by trying to take what they want and leave the rest, why continue? It just seems like he saw the perfect opportunity to show how much he can "assess" an album i.e. pontificate or bullshit.
I mean who cares if the style has been done before, it's not as if they're stealing actual songs, they write their own music, so what's the issue?
The issue is that there is nothing to the pipettes BUT style. And when that style is stolen, they don't have much going for them.
quote:
And I have heard some of the music off of the album, it's enjoyable music and seems to be quite fun.
The rating is not for how enjoyable or fun the music is, but how GOOD it is. Mr p never says "Fun music is bad." I don't think he means to insinuate that either. But the pipettes try way too hard to be fun, and thus fail at being good.
quote:
He made his point, he thinks the music is a "negation" of the original style by trying to take what they want and leave the rest, why continue? It just seems like he saw the perfect opportunity to show how much he can "assess" an album i.e. pontificate or bullshit.
Please try to read more carefully. Here's the quote: "It extracts what it sees fit and drops it into a new time and place, essentially stripping away its original relevance for a hedonistic, spoiled one, simply because it might be "fun" to do."
This revisionism doesn't negate a style (you can't negate a style). Mr p says it is the 'original relevance' that has been negated.
He does seem to insinuate that simple fun can be bad: "The more I take music "too seriously," the more I find myself yearning for something that facilitates new ways of thinking, new approaches, new anything." Okay fair enough, but if the music isn't trying for that, what do you do? Does that make the music bad, No. It doesn't make the music anything except maybe a bit unoriginal. But that doesn't tell you anything about the music itself. And the subsequent review doesn't actually talk about the music, only their negation of the original relevance by picking and choosing. But what about the actual songs, the individual components that actually make up the album. None of that is mentioned in the review, it's all grand concept and he doesn't earn his assumption that it's all negation because he doesn't talk about the actual songs. I mean look at that last sentence: "Are The Pipettes responsible for the occupation in Iraq? Of course not, but We Are The Pipettes sure wants me to stop "having to think" about it." Wouldn't any music that is designed for the purpose of sheer fun act as a distraction? I mean perhaps the Pipettes aren't too good at fun, but that's not the insinuation he seems to be making. He seems to be saying that their music is bad because it is "hedonistic" and "spoiled," well weren't the original girl bands, I mean weren't they essentially in it for the fun? He then goes on to criticize the original girl bands essentially by insinuating that they were in a way responsible for the political apathy and underscoring of gender roles of the '50's and 60's. And guess what I don't think those groups back then realized cared either cuz they seemed to be in it for the fun as well. So they were hedonistic and spoiled as well it seems. So if he doesn't like what the original music was saying, why does he care if the Pipettes strip away it's original relevance? They both were apparently evil according to our fair reviewers esteemed opinion.
He does seem to insinuate that simple fun can be bad: "The more I take music "too seriously," the more I find myself yearning for something that facilitates new ways of thinking, new approaches, new anything."
I took that as satire of what a popist like you would say.
This is the last time I'm going to say this: He didn't mention the songs because, in his view, it was unnecessary. If the only reason for making the songs was to copy girl bands in the 50s, it's not worth his time to go into detail about them.
quote:
Wouldn't any music that is designed for the purpose of sheer fun act as a distraction?
An artsier person might say that music created for any purpose at all would only be a distraction. I'm somewhat inclined to take that route myself.
But, to be more practical, a simple yes will do. If I'm going to respect a musician, they had better be aiming for something more than fun and only fun. That doesn't mean the music CAN'T be fun, but music can be fun and urgent and groundbreaking all at once, so why not go for broke?
And I'm not sure about the last part... I guess he's saying it wasn't the greatest thing the first time around, which sure as hell doesn't make it any better when somebody wants to do it again.
I've been patiently reading every word for the last page+. I haven't heard the album, and I haven't read the review. (I tend not to read reviews from certain sources, but not automatically.) Now, my simple question is, since I keep reading about "the girl groups of the '50s", who, exactly, are those groups? I'm having a tough time figuring out who's being referenced, and if they're actually from the '50s. Anybody know?
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12945 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
He does seem to insinuate that simple fun can be bad: "The more I take music "too seriously," the more I find myself yearning for something that facilitates new ways of thinking, new approaches, new anything."
I took that as satire of what a popist like you would say.
This is the last time I'm going to say this: He didn't mention the songs because, in his view, it was unnecessary. If the only reason for making the songs was to copy girl bands in the 50s, it's not worth his time to go into detail about them.
quote:
Wouldn't any music that is designed for the purpose of sheer fun act as a distraction?
An artsier person might say that music created for any purpose at all would only be a distraction. I'm somewhat inclined to take that route myself.
.
Okay I'm done with this argument simply because it's going nowhere. I get that he doesn't feel it's necessary but I feel a reviewer needs to prove his points, using some actual examples from the album, but apparently you don't. Okay fair enough. Now I got his satire, it's pretty easy to see, I just took that as another example of self-serving shit. But anyway I really don't go in for terms like rockist or popist, simply because I feel they're thrown around too easily and destroy individual opinion, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a popist, because I'm not one. I don't believe that all music is golden and everything good is good regardless of genre or who's making it. I just think that within certain genres there will be songs that I hear that I will instantly be taken with, while if that same song had been in a different genre I would probably not be as hospitable towards it. So I don't know what that makes me but really I hate these classifications. Also not all artists are trying to be groundbreaking, the Pipettes certainly aren't trying to be, although they do add touches of punk and riot grrrl attitude to the music( check out "Your Kisses are wasted on Me"), they are for the most part trying to impart "fun." And I don't think that there's anything wrong with that. I mean a classic album it might not make, but certainly a good to very good album it might. As I said I think it's the artist's right to decide what they want their audience to get out of their music. And the Pipettes, with some exceptions, like "Judy," which is kinda poignant, it seems want their audience to have fun.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Debaser20,
Originally posted by mark f: I've been patiently reading every word for the last page+. I haven't heard the album, and I haven't read the review. (I tend not to read reviews from certain sources, but not automatically.) Now, my simple question is, since I keep reading about "the girl groups of the '50s", who, exactly, are those groups? I'm having a tough time figuring out who's being referenced, and if they're actually from the '50s. Anybody know?
Haha it's true, I gotta admit I am unfamiliar with the actual '50's girl groups that we've been talking into the ground. I don't know about my opponent but we certainly haven't given any examples.
I've been patiently reading every word for the last page+. I haven't heard the album, and I haven't read the review. (I tend not to read reviews from certain sources, but not automatically.) Now, my simple question is, since I keep reading about "the girl groups of the '50s", who, exactly, are those groups? I'm having a tough time figuring out who's being referenced, and if they're actually from the '50s. Anybody know?
The top of the review says Teddy Bears, Shangri-las, Phil Spector, The Crystals, The Ronettes. It's the girl group aesthetic that the reviewer complains about more than any one group getting ripped off though. I'm guessing the rest of the groups on the rhino comps too - the shirelles, the supremes, the chiffons, etc.
OK. Apparently, the '50s "girl bands" are "'60s Girl Bands". Is that enough to question the original review or not? Based on the BS I deal with on a daily basis, no, but based on reality, I say yes.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12945 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
I think the only reason you saw 50s girl groups so much is that I/we got sloppy with the labeling.
..and now that I think of it, the main benefit of that last page was really just finger exercise, for me at least. So sorry if you took the time to wade through all that nonsense.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Vitun_Krapula,
Metacritic Forums 
