Legend in the Making Debate.

[Roughneck]

When did they "change their sound"?

The Beatles or KOL? Is this a serious question?

 

[GahLee]

The Beatles or KOL? Is this a serious question?

It is...he is really high on KOL.

 

[Roughneck]

It is...he is really high on KOL.

Oh I know. He has blinders on.

 

[GahLee]

Oh I know. He has blinders on.

To each their own I suppose.

 

[kidbourbon]

Oh I know. He has blinders on.

Refer back to the "overrated bands" discussion on KoL and make note of the differing opinions on both sides of this topic.

I understand you and GahLee's position on KoL, and I don't feel like fully re-hashing that back-and-forth. But if I recall, your argument was something to the extent of "any band that writes a song called "sex on fire" is obviously trying to gear their music towards 16 year olds."

Is that about right?

If so, great argument. Such thoughtful analysis renders me speechless.

 

[kidbourbon]

The Beatles or KOL? Is this a serious question?

And, yes, it is a serious question. When did KoL change their sound?

Sometime between "Aha Shake HeartBrake" and "Only Buy The Knight"? Is this what you were going to say? Or were you just going to respond with another rhetorical question?

 

[kidbourbon]

Oh I know. He has blinders on.

Just out of curiousity, you read a lot of pitchfork media don't you?

And don't lie.

 

[Roughneck]

Refer back to the "overrated bands" discussion on KoL and make note of the differing opinions on both sides of this topic.

I understand you and GahLee's position on KoL, and I don't feel like fully re-hashing that back-and-forth. But if I recall, your argument was something to the extent of "any band that writes a song called "sex on fire" is obviously trying to gear their music towards 16 year olds."

Is that about right?


If so, great argument. Such thoughtful analysis renders me speechless.

Actually no, this is what I said

It's because they had to write a song called "Sex on Fire" for most people to notice them.

I don't care what KOL does. I will continue to listen to the first albums but everything changed when the toured with U2. I just can't see how someone can claim be a fan of a band and not notice that over the course of 4 albums there music and fan base have changed dramatically.

And, yes, it is a serious question. When did KoL change their sound?

Sometime between "Aha Shake HeartBrake" and "Only Buy The Knight"? Is this what you were going to say? Or were you just going to respond with another rhetorical question?

Listen to the first 2 albums and then listen to the latest 2. If you can't tell the difference then you are deaf. I don't care if love or hate them but to deny that nothing has changed is asinine.

Just out of curiousity, you read a lot of pitchfork media don't you?

And don't lie.

Well since we are making assumptions, lets see how I can do.

You "hate" pitchfork because they hate KOL and they are your favorite band but you still go there constantly so you know all of the newest bands to name drop. Yet publicly you decry pitchfork as "elitist" and say things like "it's just an outlet for hipsters with creative writing degrees" or some other drivel.

Does that sound about right?

 

[GahLee]

Refer back to the "overrated bands" discussion on KoL and make note of the differing opinions on both sides of this topic.

I understand you and GahLee's position on KoL, and I don't feel like fully re-hashing that back-and-forth. But if I recall, your argument was something to the extent of "any band that writes a song called "sex on fire" is obviously trying to gear their music towards 16 year olds."

Is that about right?

If so, great argument. Such thoughtful analysis renders me speechless.

Hey, I like them...I just think they have geared themselves for pop radio...lots of people do it.

 

[kidbourbon]

Well since we are making assumptions, lets see how I can do.

You "hate" pitchfork because they hate KOL and they are your favorite band but you still go there constantly so you know all of the newest bands to name drop. Yet publicly you decry pitchfork as "elitist" and say things like "it's just an outlet for hipsters with creative writing degrees" or some other drivel.

Does that sound about right?

No, you weren't correct on this one. I hadn't even heard of the site until like two weeks ago. I went to see New Pornographers at 930 club, and the singer (not Neko, the dude) made a comment between songs about Pitchfork Media. I turned to the guy to my right and asked what Pitchfork Media was. He basically said "if you haven't gone; don't go".

So of course I went and checked it out. I read a couple of their newer reviews and then I read their review of OBTN, The OBTN review sounded like you either (a) wrote it yourself, or (b) have been heavily leaning on the ideas presented therein. Thus I asked you if you frequented Pitchfork Media.

It appears my hunch was correct.

As a general rule, I don't read music blogs. At all. With the combination of the 930 club (best music venue in the country imho), internet radio (I prefer slacker over pandora), and a buddy of mine who works in the music industry and wakes up every morning having forgotten more about music than I ever knew*, I do a pretty good job of staying on top of new music. From there, my own ear is the first and final arbiter. And with my own ear as the final arbiter, I see no benefit in reading about music.**


*And he actually just started a blog himself -- (www.bdogsmusicblog.com) -- which I will go to because I know him and very much appreciate his knowledge of music....and also because he doesn't write stupid-ass articles describing an album as "atmospheric" or a singer's voice as "syrupy"....; rather, his focus appears to be on compilation. Lists and such. I invite you to check it out. It isn't mine and I'm definitely not getting kickbacks...I promise.
**Plus, writing about music is like dancing about architecture. It really doesn't make any sense. Yes, I am quoting Elvis Costello there, but I think he really hit the nail on the head. People that write about music probably think they're pretty clever as they use their own esoteric vernacular -- "oh really, that guitar sounds "jangly" does it? Thanks a lot Mr. Music Columnist, what would I have done without you?" -- but I'm of the opinion that every word they write and subsequently post to the internet is essentially just a waste of perfectly good electrons.

 

[Roughneck]

No, you weren't correct on this one. I hadn't even heard of the site until like two weeks ago. I went to see New Pornographers at 930 club, and the singer (not Neko, the dude) made a comment between songs about Pitchfork Media. I turned to the guy to my right and asked what Pitchfork Media was. He basically said "if you haven't gone; don't go".

So of course I went and checked it out. I read a couple of their newer reviews and then I read their review of OBTN, The OBTN review sounded like you either (a) wrote it yourself, or (b) have been heavily leaning on the ideas presented therein. Thus I asked you if you frequented Pitchfork Media.

It appears my hunch was correct.

As a general rule, I don't read music blogs. At all. With the combination of the 930 club (best music venue in the country imho), internet radio (I prefer slacker over pandora), and a buddy of mine who works in the music industry and wakes up every morning having forgotten more about music than I ever knew*, I do a pretty good job of staying on top of new music. From there, my own ear is the first and final arbiter. And with my own ear as the final arbiter, I see no benefit in reading about music.**


*And he actually just started a blog himself -- (www.bdogsmusicblog.com) -- which I will go to because I know him and very much appreciate his knowledge of music....and also because he doesn't write stupid-ass articles describing an album as "atmospheric" or a singer's voice as "syrupy"....; rather, his focus appears to be on compilation. Lists and such. I invite you to check it out. It isn't mine and I'm definitely not getting kickbacks...I promise.
**Plus, writing about music is like dancing about architecture. It really doesn't make any sense. Yes, I am quoting Elvis Costello there, but I think he really hit the nail on the head. People that write about music probably think they're pretty clever as they use their own esoteric vernacular -- "oh really, that guitar sounds "jangly" does it? Thanks a lot Mr. Music Columnist, what would I have done without you?" -- but I'm of the opinion that every word they write and subsequently post to the internet is essentially just a waste of perfectly good electrons.

While I do agree with Pitchfork about OBTN, I disagree on there rating for there first 2 albums. Pitchfork has a tendency to hate on certain bands for no apparent reason and one of those bands is KOL. They also give a free pass to other bands such and Animal Collective and Radiohead.

Pitchfork is pointless when it comes to reviews and commentary but they are good for 3 things, tour announcements, interviews, and there year end lists. They are good for finding new bands that you might have missed or forgotten about. There best of decade lists work the same way. There are a lot of really good obscure bands that I have discovered by looking at there lists.

While it's almost too easy to hate on Pitchfork and most of it is warranted there are some things that are worth checking out.