Remember this pretentious band I wrote about a couple weeks ago?
Go figure, Pitchfork just collected an in-depth interview with them. Not that I’m surprised. Not that I’m intentionally trying to stereotype too much here. But the clues just add up. Generic psych-pop music, weird costuming, intentionally odd religious beliefs + the ringing endorsement of today’s most hollow reviewing website… it’s just too good to be true! A match made in heaven (or whatever those Hare Krishna’s believe in).By the way, I’m not really a Pitchfork hater. I admire those folks a ton. But they do have a propensity to support musicians and projects that probably aren’t of much interest to most people I know. (And I’m not even talking about Top 40 lovers here – I have lots of friends who value individualistic music that takes some extra time to digest and enjoy, and isn’t created by robot people who use technology in the “let’s make a hit” sense.)
Anyways, I could go on and on about my music views and bore you all to death. I think the point of this entry was to say “I told you so.”
I hate to be that girl, but, you know, sometimes you have to be. Right?
P.S. I just remembered that my editor told me never to compare anything to Pitchfork reviews because nobody who is reading your work cares about what Pitchfork has to say - they are reading your work, after all. So are you all really annoyed with this post? Seriously. I wanna know.
No comments:
Post a Comment