| it really just made me think less of the writer. it was an off the cuff remark said before the start of the interview, it's totally unprofessional to print that remark. it reveals more about the writer than chan.
a local writer did the same sort of thing when interviewing melissa auf de maur (only in that instance he put the barbs in, and likely after the interview) which is why his name stuck in my head. after a few years i was able to suss out a pattern. dude had some issues with women (and by that i of course mean he had issues with himself which happened to colour his view of women) that he was in denial about, and was generally not fit to write about women artist because of said issues. i heard enough through the grapevine to put together exactly what those issues were later... and felt validated, and at the same time irritated.
beyond that i couldn't bother to read the whole piece because it started off so self-congratulating for the writer, the whole "yeah i'm a musician too, thanks for noticing." he thought he could get away with it by by making a self-conscious remark (which only goes to show how aware he was he was doing it). yeah we're all really impressed.
you have to put your ego aside to be a good arts/music writer, i mean you can let it out here and there, but you really have to keep it on a short leash. unless you really are the shit, in which case you have to go full tilt, you cant half-ways it.
only a lame-ass scenster would write like that. ive met enough of them, and they're following trends like the "masses." it's kind of pathetic to watch them cycle and the complete lack of loyalty realness.
i generally like saucy people but you have to have to be fierce to back it up. scenesters are like drag queens only with mountains of insecurity where all the fabulousness should be.
for scenesters it's like a power trip flexing the cache they never had in high school or anywhere else - only failing to recognizes that it's as absurd and shallow as having status for being a good jock/cheerleader or X stereotype.
that was probably my fourth visit to the pitchfork site. i've never bought the hype - and from what i understand they're no longer "cool" anyway (isn't that poetic). so someday they'll have a moment of realization and figure out that they're no longer the scene, that their time has passed and now they're a bunch of dorks with extensive record collections and an encyclopedic knowledge of what used to be hot shit fumbling to keep up with the new in. they'll probably keep going though... its very human to become the things you hate.
karma, believe.
Last edited by detchel; 03-06-2008 at 08:43 PM.
| 
Linear Mode
