When Pitchfork dismissed MIA’s new album earlier this year it felt like an act of insurrection against the vanguard. And it might well have been one if the guy didn’t miss the story.
My friend Steve got it right: people misunderstood MIA because a) she is bad news and b) they thought she was a pop star when she was ctually an electronic agent provacatuer.
If pitchfork don’t like MIA that’s fine with me. I am probably the only writer at rock nyc who does like her myself.
But if they bash her for being what she is, they miss the point. It is bad blogging, let alone bad rock criticism.
But it is in keepung with lockstep rock music writing today. Holy Ghost! were speaking truth when they said they never get bad reviews. Hipper than thou and pretty damn good Holy Ghost! don’t get bad reviews. Hot Chip, LCD, all those LA surf punk bands: there is no dissenting voice. The only person who dares to speak truth to coolness is Mary Magpie..
When Helen dissented from joining our hosannahs to Titus, the producer of The Monitor contacted her to say he found it refreshing.
I don’t, and I don’t at all, like writing negatively about bands under a certain size and I very, very seldom to it. I pass on the post instead. As one of two editors here, I will always post another writers opinions whatever they might be but I won’t go after musicians who are just starting out.
Everybody is open game and half the fun of writing (maybe more) is writing about what you don’t like.
Which we do all the time. From Helen to Woody and back, we criticize.
Dicks? Sure. Honest… hopefully.