I liked this response and Hunter's clarifications a lot better than that Talkhouse piece. I think her clarification is a lot less condescending and soapbox-y. Really that's the gist of it. But that's also not going to happen with most people, not with the state that the industry is in today in terms of profitability, and also because home recordings are becoming much more prevalent. You're not really going to get a stipend to record something, and you're almost certainly not going to the middle of nowhere to record it (unless you're The Men and you feel like recording in the Catskill Mountains). I guess here's my problem: Lets say I'm in a band and we're putting together our first album. We're just people doing this to make music and play shows, but somebody in a blog gets word of it and suddenly the hype cycle is in effect. The recordings get more and more press, a label gets interested, and suddenly you've got The Orwells. I don't see anything wrong with that. I dunno, she seems overly jaded and negative. As with you, I don't agree with a lot of what she said, but I can at least respect the way she presented it in her follow-up.I wouldn’t say I’d like Archy Marshall and others like him to stop making records; I just wish I could give them a stipend and send them to some internetless middle-of-nowhere in which to do it. It’s my wish for them that they take all the fucking time they need to make the best versions of themselves possible. The culture being sold to them right now encourages the opposite, and they deserve better.
Think there could be a few reasons for the tone of her initial review, little of which has to do with true condescension. First, you have to take her pedigree into account. She's been around for a good long while, played with a cast that includes Devendra Banhart, Sharon Van Etten and Phosphorescent. She's put out two records under the Lower Dens moniker, and has been touring her ass off since at least 2004. I read less true malintent in her King Krule review and more than a little frustration: after all, for all of her insider accolades, she enjoys little recognition within the broader scene. From this perspective, her treatment of Archy Marshall (you show promise, but you're not there yet) is understandable, if not warranted on those grounds alone. Secondly: she did temper what she said early on by pointing out that the most constructive reviews- and correspondingly the rarest- forego hyperbole for frank, un-dramatic appraisal. And that's exactly what she was trying to do. She never said "OMG THIS IS SHIT WHY IS EVERYBODY SO BLAH ABOUT BLAH," nor did she follow the more popular path of rolling out the red carpet for Marshall. If it comes off as condescending, it's because she's being honest without being intentionally mean-spirited, and supportive without being overly enthusiastic. That comes off as condescending, but I'm not sure it really is. When I think condescending, I think an album review that's just a picture of a monkey pissing in its own mouth. Funny, gets a lot of page views, adds nothing to the conversation. Third: part of it might be that her ideas in the initial submission just aren't as developed as those in the following submission. Indirectly, her review is much more about the state of the hype cycle and a music business all too willing these days to leverage it at the cost of the musician's career arc. It's a fair point, and the one that I think you and I are gravitating towards the most. Last point hearkens back to what you said: Totally agree with everything you said here. Band shouldn't get negative blowback purely for being swept up in the hype. However- a certain problem does arise, I think, when the band starts themselves believing the myth propagated by that very hype, starts equating their value and prowess to something totally peripheral to their actual work. That, to a degree, is what I get from Mr. Marshall- in interviews, he seems very much caught up in the Myth of Archy. Which even if he wasn't what 19 years old and just starting out, kind of cries out for a reality check. There's nothing inherently wrong with calling him out on that, saying, "you're very good, but you're not as great as the hype cycle paints you." Especially since the alternative is just allowing him to rest on his laurels and not try and hone his craft. Which I think is what Hunter was kind of saying. Anyhow, I don't think it's a perfect review, but I do think there's some truth in it. It's also just interesting getting the vantage point of an artist I thoroughly admire (srsly, check out Twin Hand Movement holy jeez). Although like I said, I have to dig deeper into King Krule before I take either side with more than a couple grains of salt.Let's say I'm in a band and we're putting together our first album. We're just people doing this to make music and play shows, but somebody in a blog gets word of it and suddenly the hype cycle is in effect.
Those are three very good artists. Can't say I'm a big fan of Sharon Van Etten, but I love Phosphorescent and Banhart is great too. I would say that the frustration is understandable, but I'm hesitant to say warranted for a couple of reasons. One is that this is the same kind of thing that happens multiple times every year, where a (usually) flash in the pan artist gets huge for a short period of time and then will usually fall into a more comfortable level of popularity. Other artists that I think this will happen to in the end: Lorde, Haim, Bastille, Foster the People, etc. From her perspective, there are many, many other bands and artists in the same situation. Quality output that is critically acclaimed but much less popular than these "fringe-indie acts". I'd say Yo La Tengo, My Brightest Diamond, Dean Wareham (of Galaxie 500), Destroyer, and many others are good examples of this. Regarding your second point, I think that just shows that we need more blogs and more critics that aren't afraid to be critics. It's definitely a problem with music reviews these days, though not to the extent of say, video game reviews. Give us more people like Lester Bangs, or blogs equivalent to New York Rocker, Conflict, etc. that weren't afraid to highlight the good and the bad. Sure, every once in a while Pitchfork will pan something but that's about it. Third point and on: I think we more or less agree with it being an issue of the hype cycle an music business being the problem. From my end though, I've seen a lot of great bands and heard a lot of great music that gets no exposure because people aren't working to hype it, and because despite it being good, people don't put down the money to pay for it and support the artists. Small labels like mine and others have to try and build up some hype otherwise the artists go completely unnoticed and everyone ends up losing out. There's just an insane amount of music vying for everyone's ears. It's a double-edged sword, but yes, once the band starts buying into the hype and doing god-knows-what because of it, you end up with a lot of problems. See: WU LYF. Read some interviews and such and yeah, Archey could use a bit of a check. I will check out Twin Hand Movement later tonight or tomorrow and report back in the Weekly Music Thread!