I really, really dislike Ultragrrl [edited title

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (605 of them)

View Previous Page...

"Richard Lloyd? I fucked him."

― da croupier, Saturday, 17 March 2007 14:11 (seventeen years ago) link

along w. Dee Dee Ramone, Iggy, Jim Morrison, Nico, Jobriath and Barack Obama...

― m coleman, Saturday, 17 March 2007 14:13 (seventeen years ago) link

Can't wait for THAT YouTube clip to surface.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 17 March 2007 15:35 (seventeen years ago) link

u wear the makeup of a gay clown rolling 100 deep in a miniature car

― luriqua, Saturday, 17 March 2007 20:24 (seventeen years ago) link

She's a fucking idiot. She epitomizes everything I hate about scene kids.

― souldesqueeze, Saturday, 17 March 2007 21:19 (seventeen years ago) link

I've never figured out, is part of her online cred due to the fact she has this mid-90s aolish name? It really sounds like it needs some numbers after it, like ultragrrrl97 or something. Outside of the context of online shit, that's just really goofy.

― mh, Sunday, 18 March 2007 19:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, she also works for Spin. Though that's hardly a source of pride anymore.

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 19 March 2007 16:52 (seventeen years ago) link

she doesn't work for spin anymore. she just touts crappy bands and gets village voice covers

― tornup_andhurt, Monday, 19 March 2007 16:56 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh, did they fire her again? :)

― souldesqueeze, Monday, 19 March 2007 16:58 (seventeen years ago) link

And of course part of what makes her special is that, well, if you tried to get one of the rock geeks who hate her to A&R-spot like this, he'd probably smart himself into irrelevance by picking the "interesting" band, or the band with "substance," instead of the faux-stylish one that's actually going to sell a shitload of records

have you looked at the sales figures of her label?

― lauren, Monday, 19 March 2007 17:01 (seventeen years ago) link

Def Jam?

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 17:55 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, I wouldn't be at all surprised if her imprint there crashed and burned and got cut loose and she moved on to the next thing. But my point there was that the reason the big-label mothership would toss her the piddling budget she's getting is that her track record and enthusiasms are over the kinds of bands who have some chance of going huge -- and big labels are still content to throw a million rock-band failures at the wall in search of the one that actually hits. The types of indie bloggers that really hate her would probably be better at picking sustainable rosters of Matador-type rock bands that can sell 20k records on their own steam and turn a profit, but most of those guys would never plump for any of the types of bands -- Muse, Killers, whatever -- that stand a chance of hitting the kind of platinum blow-up that major labels still obsess over.

P.S. between this article and the Scissor Sisters one from a while back, I get the feeling Romano's next defending-my-friends cover feature is going to be something along the lines of "Why is Everyone So Mean to My Aunt Betty," and will inevitably contain a sentence like "Standing in line at the deli, Betty looks much like she did when I first met her, twenty-six years ago, as a young mother in New Jersey."

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 19:38 (seventeen years ago) link

most of those guys would never plump for any of the types of bands -- Muse, Killers, whatever -- that stand a chance of hitting the kind of platinum blow-up that major labels still obsess over.

Yes, but did she "discover" any of these? Louis 14 haaay?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Monday, 19 March 2007 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Grr who cares if she discovered them or not? All I'm saying is she likes the types of bands who COULD sell loads of records, which the industry appreciates more than liking the types of bands that will reliably sell indie numbers. Besides which she knows about these acts before the people who sign her checks, anyway, and is self-promoting enough about it to have gotten noticed.

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 19:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Just because you sound right doesn't mean you are. But I suspect that's the reasoning of whoever pays her.

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Monday, 19 March 2007 20:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Or alternately, to function as a credible ego mastubator for a bunch of primadonna bands

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Monday, 19 March 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

1. they aren't friends anymore than everyone on this board is friends. they're in the same industry and know each other but that doesn't automatically mean they know each other well

2. there wasn't any "defending" in the Scissor Sisters piece

― Matos W.K., Monday, 19 March 2007 20:23 (seventeen years ago) link

Matos I am mainly goofing on the following:

Jason/Jake Shears is much the same person I met over 10 year ago in Seattle when I was working at Bauhaus Cafe on Capitol Hill: bubbly, optimistic, and friendly. I had so many other friends who seemed far more obsessed with music and fame; I never would have pegged him to be a future rock star.

She's not much different than when I first met her eight years ago, playing records at a LES bar with Spitz—she got so drunk she had to be carried downstairs to the bathroom, leading to an incident that earned her the nickname "Buckets." She just really loved music then, too, but back then no one paid much attention to her opinions.

That said, I do think the Scissors Sisters piece (which I liked) was vaguely crowy and defensive about their lack of huge success in the U.S. ("SEE, they like my friends in the UK"), and I think there's a reason this article (which I didn't like) is titled "In Defense of Ultragrrl," as opposed to "A Genuinely Journalistic Examination of Ultragrrl (in which I can substantiate alleged Ultragrrl-hate with something more than a two-second google search turning up levels abuse similar to those most well-known people get, and don't have to vaguely misrepresent message-board threads in order to wave my hands in the direction of a phenomenon I'm asking you to basically take my word for)."

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:23 (seventeen years ago) link

In other words I'm less making accusations of friend-bolstering here and more irritated by the "[topic] ROXX U R ALL GAY" vibe of the last two Romano covers I've noticed.

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Or obviously "[topic] ROXX U R ALL NOT GAY" w/r/t Scissor Sisters.

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 21:39 (seventeen years ago) link

i will take Matos WK at his word, but the whole piece has the fragrance of "my friend is being treated unfairly." Ms. Romano's claim, posted on Idolator, that she knows her only on an "air kiss" basis does seem a little disingenous…but I could be wrong.

― Veronica Moser, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:33 (seventeen years ago) link

I just read the article earlier today and while two years ago I might have been able to say that I hated her, I don't think I can anymore. While I still think she has inexcusably shitty taste in music, (for the most part) she certainly seems to know what the kids like these days. Also, she seems to have more drive than I ever have which I find admirable. I still occasionally read her blog so she certainly has "something," even if that something is little more than great tits and loads of ambition.

― ENBB, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:51 (seventeen years ago) link

Nabsico: The SS piece is obviously about people she knows well. The Ultragrrrl piece isn't. I think that's an easy distinction to make. Your point about its defensiveness sounds like after-the-fact dot-connecting; it's there, but you're overemphasizing it to make a point. As far as substantiating Ultragrrrl-hate: "Attempts to get on-the-record criticism about Ultragrrrl came up mostly empty. Those who wanted to talk trash wanted to do so anonymously, including a few who'd been up for an a&r job she eventually got." I don't think that's quite the same thing as going on message boards and message boards only.

― Matos W.K., Monday, 19 March 2007 22:52 (seventeen years ago) link

emphasis, btw, on "on-the-record"

― Matos W.K., Monday, 19 March 2007 22:53 (seventeen years ago) link

"air kiss" basis wtf who knows people on an "air kiss" basis?

― M@tt He1ges0n, Monday, 19 March 2007 22:55 (seventeen years ago) link

(I'm noting the distinctions in large part because I'm privy to them; Tricia and I are very good friends. Just so that's out there.)

― Matos W.K., Monday, 19 March 2007 22:56 (seventeen years ago) link

"air kiss" basis wtf who knows people on an "air kiss" basis?

um, nightlife people. how is this difficult to understand?

― Matos W.K., Monday, 19 March 2007 22:57 (seventeen years ago) link

I like the nightlife people, I like to boogie people.

― da croupier, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:03 (seventeen years ago) link

Matos, I appreciate your defenses, but I think you're (a) overestimating how much I'm criticizing Tricia, and (b) kind of waving your hands at the things I am criticizing.

For instance, if you can't find anyone to go on the record as hating Ultragrrl, and the most you can scrape together is that some people on the internet think she sucks (which can be said of ANYTHING in the music world), possibly the moral of the story is that the Voice should not run a front-page cover story defending against this alleged phenomenon??

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:14 (seventeen years ago) link

hmm...nightlife people. sounds suspicious. who knows what they're up to when they're out tomcatting around at studio 54?

― M@tt He1ges0n, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:17 (seventeen years ago) link

maybe tricia and sarah aren't myspace buddies but still it feels like the article exists to bring attention to sarah lewittin under the guise of defending her.

― botero, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:22 (seventeen years ago) link

chris ott's response in the comments section makes some interesting points, too.

― botero, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:23 (seventeen years ago) link

haha oh I agree that it shouldn't have been a cover story! but I also think the majority of the criticism of the piece boils down to "Ultragrrrl sucks, why did you write about her," which sort of proves the article's point. not that this is what Nabisco is saying.

― Matos W.K., Monday, 19 March 2007 23:24 (seventeen years ago) link

I saw "Chris Ott" and "interesting point" in the same sentence and went blind

― Matos W.K., Monday, 19 March 2007 23:26 (seventeen years ago) link

i know you can't read this but i am sorry about that :-\

― botero, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:31 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, FFS, Matos, the journalist's admission that he/she can't substantiate something in print is just NOT an adequate substitute for, you know, actually substantiating it -- there's not much in this article that in any way explains, shows, or digs into how Ultragrrl hate is any different, greater, or more interesting than people on message boards hating the hell out of any random band, blogger, or other figure in the music world. (It's telling how she handwaves twice at the original title of this thread as some kind of proof of a wellspring of hatred, despite the title's being shot down within hours kinda maybe suggesting the opposite, and despite the fact that if violent ILM thread-naming were a barometer of public hatred, Alex in NYC alone would be responsible for vast conspiracies against everything from Shania Twain's t-shirt collection on down.)

Basically I think it's a fairly vacant angle she's taking here -- "in defense" -- and the fact that she's taken that angle gives her license to play advocate in certain senses, to portray Lewitinn as unfairly maligned not by proving it via journalism, but just by essayistic assertion, general handwaving, and even selective misrepresentation. (And so if she wasn't friends with her before, I'd say she is now, by definition.) So why the "in defense" angle? It seems like on one hand she's relying on the idea of a rabid mob to make Lewitinn seem important and worth reading about, as if without it we might conclude that she's just a well-known industry star who might not actually merit a Voice cover. And it seems on another hand like she's using the idea of this angry mob to evade writing a full straight feature and actually come out in support of brave sweet Ultragrrl. And then the only substantive explanation of Why People (Supposedly) Hate Ultragrrl comes in a quote from .... umm, her, herself.

So point being I think it's a really ill-conceived piece, for reasons having to do with Romano and reasons having to do with whoever decided this should be a cover feature -- it's just kind of pointless and depressing. I like Romano just fine and enjoy her usual role in the Voice and everyone I've ever heard talk about her personally seems to think she's a lovely person, so there -- still, this piece just seems ten different levels of wrong to me, and not even because I hate Lewitinn or something.

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Sorry, xpost!

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Also haha yeah, I am weirded out by what I'm about to say, but Ott is vastly OTM about one thing, which says what I mean here in a lot fewer words:

you have essentially written a cover story lionizing budding music magnate Sarah Lewitinn's resilience in the face of nasty blog comments. Others have noted, with varying incredulity, how totally ridiculous this is.

― nabisco, Monday, 19 March 2007 23:52 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, you can't do Hamlet without Hamlet.

― Chris Ott, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 00:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh man, I can't believe it took me this long to pick up on the "Bigmouth Strikes Again" reference with that iPod!

― nabisco, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 00:41 (seventeen years ago) link

http://joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/FR/screw_ball.jpg

― da croupier, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 00:42 (seventeen years ago) link

x-post

― da croupier, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 00:42 (seventeen years ago) link

two weeks pass...

Not to revive too much here, but I have to note the following irony: the most critical letter printed about the Ultragrrl cover story came from a guy who once somehow managed to get the Voice to run a story he wrote about a side project of a band he used to be in.

― nabisco, Thursday, 5 April 2007 17:00 (seventeen years ago) link

IRL CONSEQUENCES

― deej, Thursday, 5 April 2007 17:02 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost Chemical Romance?

― stevienixed, Thursday, 5 April 2007 17:54 (seventeen years ago) link

FACT: wrinklepaws hates Ultragrrl

― am0n, Thursday, 5 April 2007 19:00 (seventeen years ago) link

am0n, whats his opinion on Perpetua?

― deej, Thursday, 5 April 2007 21:13 (seventeen years ago) link

He think's he's fluxtastic.

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 5 April 2007 21:33 (seventeen years ago) link

isn't he going by UltraPerrrp now?

― Alex in Baltimore, Thursday, 5 April 2007 23:57 (seventeen years ago) link

eight months pass...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1169/876112108_6cea21bc59_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1349/881007131_f01990e8d7_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1093/773936253_6134c8e64e_o.jpg

― Crêpe, Saturday, 15 December 2007 04:28 (sixteen years ago) link

Skipping 505 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

I really, really dislike Ultragrrl [edited title - mod]