the quietus : the new look

Wouldn't it have been better for all parties involved to just, uh, not run the piece?

I mean, Christ, if Pitchfork couldn't get beardo from [INSERT HIP INDIE BAND HERE] to name his favorite albums of the decade I don't think they'd write an article trashing him.

― & other try hard shitfests (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:50 (Yesterday) Bookmark

These are the two things that I think are most U&K.

If someone's being that difficult, surely the best reaction would be not to give them the time of day, rather than write a trash-talking piece.

I was indifferent to mildly disliking Florence before. This piece made me feel sorry for her, made me feel cringing about the backlash that's coming for her as it comes to every uppity bitch who is due her comeuppance for getting above herself.

Would you take down some flavour of the week male indie popstar who stuttered their way through an interivew? If you got in one of Friendly Fires or Waavves or Neon Indian or ::insert flavour of the week:: and they showed something less than an autistic music journo knowledge of the past decade's worth of indie rock criticism regarding canonical albums - would they get whipped up into some philosophical fury in quite the same way?

Using women to take down uppity women is, as Everything points out, an old trick, but still a cheap one.

And sorry but no, the fact that you interviewed LaRoux last month and let her run her idiotic mouth off in similar style without whipping that up into some philosophical think-piece (which actually might have been more called-for given the actually offensively hateful, as opposed to merely vague and fluffy, things that come out of her mouth) - that does not excuse you.

Awful piece which breaks the first rule of takedown pieces - give 'em enough rope. And the second rule - if you think someone's answer is weak say so to their face and create a dialogue, don't bitch about in print after the fact. Without the behind-the-scenes context it just seems vindictive and out of proportion to anything Florence said or did. Fine, if she was obnoxious, or patronising, or a complete moron, but she just sounds tired and vague and not deserving of this kind of snarky bullshit. This kind of sub-par rant-cum-stitch-up was never par for the course in the old days of NME and MM - I just read an old Swells piece with L7 where he's obviously disappointed by their flimsy answers and pokes fun at them for it but still conveys the sense that he wanted them to be better, or there's Sylvia's Alanis piece, where she lets Alanis make a fool of herself while being nicely understated herself, whereas this writer seems like she hated Florence from the off and proceeds to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I generally like Quietus but this should never have run.

Yeah, pretty sure this proves that the editorial team of the Quietus hate and fear women, great fucking observation xp

Fuck you.

You don't actually have any basis for what you're saying though, do you?

Strawberry Letter: If you keep on misreading everything I write then there's literally no point in answering this. But I'll give it one more go: Laura asked to interview her. We said do a 'Things I've Learned' so we can find some neutral ground so we don't have to lay into her (Luke and I dislike her, we presumed that Laura was a fan hence the request). She was offered a chance to talk about her ten favourite albums of the decade or *any other subject of her choosing*. SHE CHOSE TO TALK ABOUT HER TEN FAVOURITE ALBUMS OF THE DECADE. Then when we turned up she couldn't even name ten and two of the ones she chose were from the 90s. SHE CHOSE THIS SUBJECT AS SOMETHING SHE WAS EXPERT ON.

All she had to do was choose ten albums from the literally hundreds of thousands that have been released in the last decade.

We asked for Florence talking about her favourite albums. Period.

Due to her, and her alone we got a fucking mess and a waste of time. If you want to read this as misogyny then fill your boots.

Elsewhere on the site recently, other female artists being "taken down": Diamanda Galas, The Slits, PJ Harvey, La Roux, Siouxsie Sioux, Phantom, Yoko Ono, George Pringle, Speech Debelle, Theoretical Girl, Tori Amos, Lydia Lunch . . .

Elsewhere on the site, some of the best female writers in the UK given free reign to write about what they want . . .

What, I have no basis for saying

1) that the british press has a build-me-up-knock-em-down approach to pop stars

2) that the writer went into this interview/piece with an agenda - and I'm kind of suspicious as to what that agenda is

3) the harshness of the piece has a lot more to do with the particular philosophical axe that the writer is grinding than the artist herself - and is fairly inappropriate?

Really?

x-post

Doran, you're really coming across as quite angry and defensive - fair enough, given the Quietus is your baby. But when you've got a quite substantial amount of people saying that the article was over the line, perhaps you might give that some thought.

No, this bit

Using women to take down uppity women is, as Everything points out, an old trick, but still a cheap one.

I haven't read this Florence piece yet and don't have time to but that Brian Molko takedown mentioned upthread was pretty much by favourite NME interview of the late 90s.

That was a reference to this post:

I vaguely recollect that the English music press has a history of employing at least one or two clueless bitches to take down easy targets. It's probably comforting for the middle-aged dudes that read the Quietus to know that these traditions continue, even when done as poorly as this.

― everything, Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:10 (Yesterday) Bookmark

Which riled me so much last night that I wasn't sure whether to suggest ban the poster or give them a medal. When something angers me on that kind of level, it means that it's something that I should really give some more thought to, to find out *why* it riles me. The phrase "clueless bitches" was what really angered me, but once I removed that particularly offensive phrase, the rest of the statement seemed depressingly plausible.

Now I don't know what the agenda of the writer in point 2 was - but given the line of thinking above, it does seem a possible agenda. Not one I like, but nonetheless a plausible one.

If it's not the case, then clearly the writer of the piece is certainly able to come on ILX and explain her actual agenda. I'd actually really like to hear a less depressing explanation for the vitriol in the piece.

(I was also really angry at Contenderizer's line of discussion in another thread, and that, I admit, may have coloured the conclusions that I posited about the agenda of this piece.)

Might be useful to separate possible misogynistic agenda (which I sincerely doubt in this case) from plain bad journalism.

This is a pretty cowardly piece. I'm no fan of Flo, but if you have a problem with ditzy or vague answers have an argument at the time and write that up! Don't go home, realise you've got no useable copy and then take it out on the interviewee!

I think she commented below the piece itself fwiw. I assume that everything poster is thinking of Burchill and a few less famous journos thereafter (eg Sylvia Patterson as per my Placebo interview mention) but the implication therein is wild conjecture at best and it's pretty baseless to suggest that was what was going on here

xp to Kate sorry

Might be useful to separate possible misogynistic agenda (which I sincerely doubt in this case) from plain bad journalism.

Point taken.

BURCHILL IS GREAT i will defend her 4eva

Your on your own there, lex, I fear

I love Burchill's writing. I don't always agree with what she says, but the way that she expresses things was utterly untouchable in her golden age, and still engaging enough for me to read her, even when she's on a reactionary rant.

This writer, however, really is no Burchill.

I generally don't read comments sections, but in looking for her explanation as referenced above, I found this:

My distaste fed off the stupid things she said and feeling that pop fans are being duped with this poor excuse for individuality and creativity.

OH NOES, ALERT THE AUTHORITIES!!!

Pop fans are being duped!!!

Disposable pop moppets in being, well, a bit dumb and more interested in presentation than endlessly rehashing rockist streams of "Influence" shockah. Next week: H from Steps unable to provide discourse on the modern Russian novel.

Thank god we can now go back to being not-duped by luminaries of individuality and creativity in our flavour of the week pop listening habits. We never would have known without you, Laura!

Sorry, I'm being facetious now. I'm a bit bored today, can you tell?

Yes, because she's not a Disposable Pop Moppet though she is a Quirky, Individualistic Woman with a Wry Take On Love and Life who is a Little Bit Ethereal and a Little Bit Otherworldly

Ah yes, the Ethereal Girl. I remember that archetype well.

Basically pop moppet in a Laura Ashley dress who once heard a Kate Bush album (or has a publicist who once heard a Kate Bush album)

It's a strong brand

This reminds me of that piece I was going to write when I can find the time and stop being so angry and actually sit down and frame the insights I had last week into some kind of cogent framework.

If only I could find a place to publish it.

Doran, do you want a thinkpiece on the re-rise of The Ethereal Girl, or have I rubbished your site too much now?

Just read that piece, it's not really very edifying for anyone concerned, it just comes across as a pissy rant from someone with an axe to grind. A friend used to be in a (bad white funk) band with Florence and by all accounts she's a pretty snotty person and maybe ripe for a good takedown but this isn't it.

Kate: Pitch away. I think you've got my email. I'll try and get back to you after the weekend.

I probably won't have anything cogent until after the weekend anyway, but I'll email you when I do.

Are there still white funk bands? Wow. I thought everyone knew they were officially A Bad Idea.

but my problem with the piece isn't that the writer's being "mean," it's that the writer lacks any hint whatsoever of self-deprecation. Exposing the charade of the entire Q&A-with-a-pop-star process could've made for some funny or interesting reading, but the writer just seems intent on proving herself smarter than her subject

Agree completely, she's trying too hard to demonstrate her rock crit chops, but failing to communicate anything interesting.

You guys were busy while I was asleep last night. Doran, to set the record straight, I certainly wasn't trying to imply that the Quietus needs to be more like Pitchfork. Not at all. In fact, part of the reason Quietus is one of my daily stops is because I find it a nice antidote to Pitchfork. I was simply trying to point out that most other websites would have just chosen to can the feature rather than running with it. Re-reading it this morning and I still don't see where Florence came across that bad, beyond being a little annoying. I'm not saying she wasn't a pain in the ass, but the important point is this: it isn't made clear in the article. The writer comes across as being bitter and out to destroy Florence. As mentioned above, maybe a little more background in the piece might have helped us understand. As it stands, I still think it was a piece done in very poor taste.

Doesn't mean I don't still deeply respect Quietus, I'll continue to stop by every day. I'm glad you guys are doing what you did, but I'm going to avoid this particular writer in the future. And with that, I think I've said all that needs to be said about it.

Doran: can I write about why I think La Roux is a totes annoying bitch? I'll chuck in some quasi-intellectual crap, just to dress it up for the whingers here.

I guess the good thing about being in the U.S. right now is not having been subjected to Florence and La Roux all the time.

& Other: cheers - seems fair.

King Boy Pato: Ha ha! The Quietus is considering not writing about flame-haired synth/indie major label buy ins in either a negative or a positive fashion (for at least a week or two).

We'll stick to doing really long, in depth features on artists that other people have a tendency to ignore, even though no one ever comments on them.

[/sleep deprivation grammar]

I guess maybe that was what triggered my response. That I tend to look at TQ mostly when my friends retweet interesting links. This one got retweeted WAY more than any other article I'd seen, so I thought it might be more important/engaging/whatever - instead of realising that people just enjoy the controversy of carcrashes.

Are there still white funk bands? Wow. I thought everyone knew they were officially A Bad Idea.

― Dorian (Dorianlynskey), Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:26 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

haha, what does this even mean.

there was an article in Jane once where the writer saw my band play in new orleans, and the choice quote was when she was digging the music and then noticed that "aren't they a bit young, and, um, white?" we put it on a t-shirt.

Anyone doubting the righteousness of (mainly) white funk needs to check Afrique's 'Soul Makossa'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmyMokq0RcY

Record of the Day Awards for Journalism and PR - the winners
2009-11-27

*runners-up in brackets*

Live Reviews: Writer of the Year
John Doran, The Quietus, NME and others
(Alexis Petridis, The Guardian)

Record Reviews: Writer of the Year
Alexis Petridis - The Guardian
(Luke Turner, The Quietus)

Digital Publication of the Year
The Quietus
(The Line of Best Fit)

hurray.

many congrats, richly deserved, even if that proximity to Petridis there makes it look like zinging in disguise.

awesome news john and luke, and hella well deserved!!

Fellow old man Simon Reynolds, predictably, gives this the thumbs up

that was not the decade of pop i experienced.

Simon, it should be pointed out, actually looks about 24.

That is an appalling article. People in their late 40s shouldn't be writing about pop and certainly not in such reductive not-as-good-as-my-day terms. Which is ironically, exactly what Stubbs used to argue 20 years ago.

haha that wasn't even as bad as i was expecting. how you can write an article like that and not even get anywhere near to the real story of the decade i have no idea - that it's not any genre that's dying, it's the music industry, and that the tabloidism and default to conservatism of pop recently is a consequence of that.

there's a whole load of hand-wringing "this is bad" - and some VERY selective examples! - and not a great deal of explanation as to why it might be bad apart from the sub-morleyisms near the end (and i find morley's own writing embarrassing enough).

People in their late 40s shouldn't be writing about pop

This part is just fucking stupid.

also john please sort out that terrible indie song auto-playing when i click on to that page! what the fuck is it anyway.

Some random samples of those occupying the charts throughout the decade give a sense of the encroaching flavourlessness. So, in December 2002, we have Blue & Elton John, Robbie Williams, Gareth Gates, Eminem, Las Ketchup, S Club 7, Pink, The Cheeky Girls, Daniel Bedingfield and Atomic Kitten. In December 2004, it's a revived Band Aid version of 'Do They Know It's Christmas', Natasha Bedingfield, Ice Cube, Nelly and Christina Aguilera, Green Day, Destiny's Child, Girls Aloud, U2. The winter of 2006, meanwhile, yielded Take That, Nelly Furtado, Gwen Stefani, Jamelia, U2/Green Day, Justin Timberlake and Emma Bunton.

this is a terrible paragraph because it makes such a bold statement and then proceeds to back up a "trend" with a selection of completely disparate acts and then just not explain why they prove the original point BECAUSE THEY DON'T.

I'm certainly not defending Simon, typically can't stand him, I just think its silly to completely dismiss older pop writers. Some of them are actually good at winding threads through decades of pop and bring an interesting view (obv not the gobshite in question).

i do not for a second believe that that is a 'random sample' unless Stubbs is using a very very specialised definition of 'random'.