930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: smakawhat on July 12, 2007, 11:40:00 am
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102378.html?hpid=sec-artsliving (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102378.html?hpid=sec-artsliving)
-
"YMMV"
i thought it was a great show, definitely in my top 5 for the year so far... but low end of the top 5, might be bumped off depending how the rest of the year goes. maybe i have more patience then these too-cool-for-school reviewers, but i didn't mind the 3.5 hours length at all... this seemed to be a common complaint. i liked billy's guitar heroics, another negative in many people's books. i didn't have a chance to see the pumpkins the first time 'round, so i have nothing to compare this show to. some nay-sayers said that all the deco and mock-political shinanigans were trite, whereas i thought they added to the evening.
also, several things i enjoyed about that evening didn't happen on stage. standing on the sidewalk talking with other fans was fun, and the post-show meet-up downstairs was a friggin' BLAST.
finally, there was several things to not like about this show before a single note was played - it's not a "true reunion", billy is an egomaniac, its a nostalgia tour, yuenglings are $6, blah blah. i got the impression that some hipsters walked into the club with their minds already made up.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
i got the impression that some hipsters walked into the club with their minds already made up.
ding ding ding.
-
No. Not at all. Not even close. That review seems written as an indictment of Corgan with evidence being peripheral things and preconceived notions. Maybe the reviewer had a bad spot in the club and couldn't immerse himself in the music well enough to overcome his pre-conceived notions.
The most telling thing was his statement that Bullet w/ Butterfly Wings and Zero were lacklaster. Every 'classic' song other then maybe Today (which seemed more out of context in the current incarnation than) were hit out of the park in my opinion. But hey, I even enjoyed Gossamer.
Maybe the show was more of a long foreign film than a hollywood blockbuster. It was exhausting and took patience at times. Maybe there was an underlying meloncholy - the show was celebrating the release of an album being received with poor reviews and indifference; the scene and, well, the 'zeitgeist' in which band flourished is gone (not to mention two original members).
But the band was focused, unapologetic, unsentimental. If you were close enough to the speakers it was easy for the rush of sound to overpower the doubts and the memories. And like many a good foreign film the show was delivered by auteurs and the end result was a complicated mix of sadness, triumph, glory, disappointment, ennui and excitement and whatever . . . and was certainly a good show in my opinion.
-
I thought it was a GREAT show! If you're not into hanging out for 3+ hours then fucking leave already!!
-
Fixed :D
Originally posted by sweetcell:
i got the impression that some fanboys walked into the club with their minds already made up.
Honestly, it really wasn't as bad as the Post review said. I hate "Bullet with Butterfly Wings" on record, but found the song pretty strong live. And there were definitely more highlights than the reviewer is letting on. I thought "United States" was a great opener...it's a fucking pounding song, even if it is a little pointlessly long. And like I said..."Starla."
That said, I did find the second half of the show pretty trying, if not downright painful. The new songs just sound like a band soullessly trying to sound like the Pumpkins, which is a shame since their sound is fairly unique (not original, mind you, but you can always tell a Smashing Pumpkins song). And seriously, I can handle lengthy noodling, but "Gossamer" was honestly painful.
But still, it was worth the money just for brief reliving of my teen years. And even though the mock political ego trip was like throwing fuel on a fire, IMO, at least the money did get used to make the show an event: flags, shirts, posters, balloons, etc. Just my two cents...
-
i found it amusing that the author droned on about billy's ego like some planned state of outkast, when it was indeed the writer who let his own ego litter the white lines with blank words of a self important idea that "my style is what's important here folks."
that is why writers of fiction despise writers of paper print. this one needs to go back to the school of creativity and off the train of clinging to a mindset that you think a demographic of readers will cling to.
-
God damn that Billy Corgan for charging much less then he could for tickets, having the audacity to give people free shwag and tshirts instead of making them buy it, and then making sure they got as long of a set as they band could play instead of walking off after 75 minutes. Damn you, Billy Corgan, damn you all to hell!
-
I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
God damn that Billy Corgan for charging much less then he could for tickets, having the audacity to give people free shwag and tshirts instead of making them buy it, and then making sure they got as long of a set as they band could play instead of walking off after 75 minutes. Damn you, Billy Corgan, damn you all to hell!
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.
This is all double speak. It's clear the writer did not like Smashing Pumpkins going in. If Interpol came to town and played for an hour, you'd blast the hell out of them for that. But the Pumpkins come and play for three hours and don't jack up ticket prices and they're "indulgent." It's so ridiculous - "the band played too long." Yes, because that's a complaint we hear so often. :roll:
Even you have to see the absurdity about complaining about an arena band playing a club show, giving away free shirts and shwag to their fans, shaking a bunch of people's hands, and then playing for 3+ hours at a relatively low ticket price, regardless of their motives behind it.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
God damn that Billy Corgan for charging much less then he could for tickets, having the audacity to give people free shwag and tshirts instead of making them buy it, and then making sure they got as long of a set as they band could play instead of walking off after 75 minutes. Damn you, Billy Corgan, damn you all to hell!
[/b]
Don't be a prick. How many bands of their magnitude would play 9 shows at the Orange peel and another 10 or so at Fillmore? They could have easily substituted these shows for much larger venues and MUCH higher ticket prices. I dont buy your publicity story...
-
Originally posted by Kevin Craig:
Don't be a prick.
i take it you're new around here...
after a while, one comes to appreciate this man's acidic humor and observations. sorta.
-
Originally posted by Kevin Craig:
Don't be a prick.
Telling Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer to not be a prick is like telling the Atlantic Ocean to not be so wet. If you hang around for a while, you'll come to appreciate that. :p
Originally posted by Kevin Craig:
How many bands of their magnitude would play 9 shows at the Orange peel and another 10 or so at Fillmore? They could have easily substituted these shows for much larger venues and MUCH higher ticket prices. I dont buy your publicity story...
I'm sure the band is partially motivated by publicity. I think the low ticket prices ($20 in asheville with $1.60 ticket fees) are a goodwill gesture toward the fans, but at the same time, the mock rally was clearly to try and get some free press/marketing/etc. But the fact they are getting some publicity out of it doesn't make it a bad thing for the fans who DID get some benefit out of it - namely: posters, signs, tshirts, buttons, flags, etc.
-
Ok, I see your points. Good job.
What writer doesn't have preconceived notions, either positive or negative, about a popular band going into a show?
Regarding length of show: I've been to some 60 minute shows that seemed just about the right length in time. Other 60 minute shows have left me feeling ripped off.
Very few bands can pull off a 3 hour show and not have it seem "indulgent". Even bands whose two hour shows I love. In this case, perhaps it was playing a 20 minute unreleased (if I read right) that stretched the show to 3 hours that was the indulgence.
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I'm sure he did that because he loves his fans, and not because of the publicity it was likely to bring. I'm sure giving away free t-shirts and charging only $35 for a ticket is going to cause him to have to sell off one of his mansions. That I'm sure of.
This is all double speak. It's clear the writer did not like Smashing Pumpkins going in. If Interpol came to town and played for an hour, you'd blast the hell out of them for that. But the Pumpkins come and play for three hours and don't jack up ticket prices and they're "indulgent." It's so ridiculous - "the band played too long." Yes, because that's a complaint we hear so often. :roll:
Even you have to see the absurdity about complaining about an arena band playing a club show, giving away free shirts and shwag to their fans, shaking a bunch of people's hands, and then playing for 3+ hours at a relatively low ticket price, regardless of their motives behind it. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Regarding length of show: I've been to some 60 minute shows that seemed just about the right length in time. Other 60 minute shows have left me feeling ripped off.
Very few bands can pull off a 3 hour show and not have it seem "indulgent". Even bands whose two hour shows I love. In this case, perhaps it was playing a 20 minute unreleased (if I read right) that stretched the show to 3 hours that was the indulgence.
I see your point, but if a band only plays 45-60 minutes and people want more, tough. If a band plays 3 hours, and you want less, hey, you can leave. It's not as though they were holding back hit singles until after Gossamer (which, I'll admit, was my personal lowpoint of the evening).
-
True enough. I reckon I'd rather have a band error on the long side than the short side anyway.
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Regarding length of show: I've been to some 60 minute shows that seemed just about the right length in time. Other 60 minute shows have left me feeling ripped off.
Very few bands can pull off a 3 hour show and not have it seem "indulgent". Even bands whose two hour shows I love. In this case, perhaps it was playing a 20 minute unreleased (if I read right) that stretched the show to 3 hours that was the indulgence.
I see your point, but if a band only plays 45-60 minutes and people want more, tough. If a band plays 3 hours, and you want less, hey, you can leave. It's not as though they were holding back hit singles until after Gossamer (which, I'll admit, was my personal lowpoint of the evening). [/b]
-
That's hitting the nail on the head. Had they skipped that song entirely, filling in another 4-5 tracks instead, it would've been a much better flow. But the jamming wasn't even really inventive or intriguing, IMO.
My other problem regarding length was just a personal one. Back in the day, the Pumpkins weren't much of a marathon band; hell, Billy would lose much of his voice early on. I just left feeling like the band were playing the songs because they had to rather than wanting to. Granted, I'm not a huge fan of "Fuck You" on record, but it should've killed live. Instead, it just seemed to be paint by numbers.
Maybe it was the intense touring they're on (9 shows at the same place, then moving on to 10 shows out west), but by the end, they just seemed worn out. But as I've said...that's just me.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
In this case, perhaps it was playing a 20 minute unreleased (if I read right) that stretched the show to 3 hours that was the indulgence.
-
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
It's clear the writer did not like Smashing Pumpkins going in.
not really ... what IS clear is that all the fanboys around here were going to LOVE the show (BEST SHOW EVAH!!) no matter what happened ... i'm sure the critic's preconceived notions trended much closer towards the objective side than everyone else's here, which is why i appreciated his take on the evening
-
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
not really ... what IS clear is that all the fanboys around here were going to LOVE the show (BEST SHOW EVAH!!) no matter what happened ... i'm sure the critic's preconceived notions trended much closer towards the objective side than everyone else's here, which is why i appreciated his take on the evening
In my mind, "they band played too long" is not a valid argument. I hate Phish, but in my litany of complaints against Phish, I don't include, "man, their shows are indulgently long."
-
Few, if any, people here said it was the best show evah. And the Post article seems just as bad as it is biased in the opposite direction. I think you like the article b/c it summed up what you hoped the show would be when you justified not going.
I'm not saying any opinion isn't ok or right, and others agree with you (and the Post) but how can you say the article is right on if you weren't there? It didn't reflect what I experience or what any of the people I was with experienced.
-
Seriously Hoya, who are you...Rhett?!?! :D
I KID!
Originally posted by Mobius:
how can you say the article is right on if you weren't there?
-
That all may be true, but I think the Post write did a better job of explaining why the show sucked than anybody on here did of explaining why is was "fan-fucking-tastic". I guess that's why he's getting paid to write his review and we're wasting our work time writing about it on this board.
Originally posted by Mobius:
Few, if any, people here said it was the best show evah. And the Post article seems just as bad as it is biased in the opposite direction. I think you like the article b/c it summed up what you hoped the show would be when you justified not going.
-
Maybe - just maybe - they did the whole political rally thing because they thought it might be kind of fun. And if it was for publicity..well...good for them. It was their big cd-release party. What's wrong with a little marketing on the day of your first cd release in many years? Especially if everyone involved gets to have a little fun. Jeez - Lighten up people.
It wasn't the greatest show of all time. It was far from the worst. It was definitely a really fun time.
-
since i myself am one, i feel the pumpkins fan base should be called the army of drama queens, following the leadership skills of the head practitioner himself.
-
I wasn't criticizing their marketing techniques (though it all reads rather corny to me personally), rather I was criticising the disingenuous of saying how the whole show was one big gift to the fans.
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Maybe - just maybe - they did the whole political rally thing because they thought it might be kind of fun. And if it was for publicity..well...good for them. It was their big cd-release party. What's wrong with a little marketing on the day of your first cd release in many years? Especially if everyone involved gets to have a little fun. Jeez - Lighten up people.
It wasn't the greatest show of all time. It was far from the worst. It was definitely a really fun time.
-
That write up definitely made me question how The Post, or any other publication, decides who to send out to do the reviews for what shows. Clearly you couldn't send an uber fan because in their eyes the band could do no wrong. That said I would think you should at the very least send someone who has some level of appreciation for the band they are reviewing. When reading that write up is was pretty clear that the writer had some negative preconceived notions about the band, their music and Billy Corgan himself. So why did he bother coming? Just to confirm his distaste for The Pumpkins? Makes no sense to me.
This paragraph in his article clearly spells out that he already has a serious dislike for Smashing Pumpkins: "The inclusion of a six-song mini-set of acoustic material was as inevitable as it was intolerable. Corgan's nasal wail is tough enough to take when it's accompanied by massive guitars and thundering drums -- and that's on record, with the assistance of studio trickery. In a live setting, with nothing but an acoustic guitar to accompany his voice and embarrassing lyrics ("This is the song I've been singing my whole life / I've been waiting like a knife / To cut open your heart / And bleed my soul to you" -- there are so, so many more where that came from), it was borderline torturous. Ten more minutes and I would have confessed to war crimes."
-
Originally posted by Shadrach:
"Ten more minutes and I would have confessed to war crimes."
That was a great line.
I thought he should have coined a fancy sub-genre name with it:
Noriega-Rock
Psych-ops-Rock
-
But can't you have a level of appreciation for a band AND have negative preconceived notions about the band?
I appreciate the mark Led Zeppelin left on the music world. And I appreciate the fact that they're better than many bands that followed their trail.
Yet, I fucking hate Led Zeppelin and Robert Plant's annoying wail of a voice and his whole squeeze the juice from my lemon legs schtick. You couldn't pay me enough to see them live, either now, or five years after their last show.
Originally posted by Shadrach:
That write up definitely made me question how The Post, or any other publication, decides who to send out to do the reviews for what shows. Clearly you couldn't send an uber fan because in their eyes the band could do no wrong. That said I would think you should at the very least send someone who has some level of appreciation for the band they are reviewing. When reading that write up is was pretty clear that the writer had some negative preconceived notions about the band, their music and Billy Corgan himself. So why did he bother coming? Just to confirm his distaste for The Pumpkins? Makes no sense to me.
This paragraph in his article clearly spells out that he already has a serious dislike for Smashing Pumpkins: "The inclusion of a six-song mini-set of acoustic material was as inevitable as it was intolerable. Corgan's nasal wail is tough enough to take when it's accompanied by massive guitars and thundering drums -- and that's on record, with the assistance of studio trickery. In a live setting, with nothing but an acoustic guitar to accompany his voice and embarrassing lyrics ("This is the song I've been singing my whole life / I've been waiting like a knife / To cut open your heart / And bleed my soul to you" -- there are so, so many more where that came from), it was borderline torturous. Ten more minutes and I would have confessed to war crimes."
-
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
...complaining about an arena band...
Arena? Really? In 2007? Slow down. Let's wait until first week sales come in for "Zeitgeist." Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm sure 1997-era Smashing Pumpkins was a thrilling experience in an arena (you know back when they had the blonde on bass and the guiarist who...) but ten years on...?
Actually, I just came up with a great idea. Why don't the Smashing Pumpkings and Marilyn Manson headline an arena tour together! They both have new albums out!
And they could set it up like dueling political conventions. Corgan vs. Manson. Each with their own set and their own "delegates." Flags, placards, buttons. CSNBC could cover it...
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
I think you like the article b/c it summed up what you hoped the show would be when you justified not going.
i justified not going to the show because i don't really like much that billy corgan (excuse me, the smashing pumpkins) has created in the last 12 years or so
i liked the article because it was well-written, snarky, immensely funny, and an antidote to the recent flood of fawning posts
Originally posted by Mobius:
I'm not saying any opinion isn't ok or right, and others agree with you (and the Post) but how can you say the article is right on if you weren't there? It didn't reflect what I experience or what any of the people I was with experienced.
you're putting words in my mouth ... i never said the concert review was "right on", just that i enjoyed it ... i did say a little while ago that STE's fantastic defenestration of 'zeitgeist' was "right on," but that's because i've (unfortunately) listened to the album
the whole setup of the concert was created for die-hard fans, which is totally and utterly cool (honestly, i'm not shitting on you for liking the pumpkins) and which is why the washpost review didn't jibe with your fellow concert-goers
i was just happy to hear about the concert from someone who had even the slightest possibility of objectivity after spending a week reading this board, that's all.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Shadrach:
"Ten more minutes and I would have confessed to war crimes."
That was a great line.[/b]
agreed, i actually snorted a little in my office ... quite embarrassing
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I appreciate the mark Led Zeppelin left on the music world. And I appreciate the fact that they're better than many bands that followed their trail.
Yet, I fucking hate Led Zeppelin and Robert Plant's annoying wail of a voice and his whole squeeze the juice from my lemon legs schtick. You couldn't pay me enough to see them live, either now, or five years after their last show.
the point being, then, that you should not be sent to review a zep reunion show (if you were a concert reviewer). you're going to walk in resenting having to go, and will walk out hating the band even more - no matter how good a performance they put on. you might as well write your review before you even set foot in the venue... not unlike this malitz hipster-dude. it's predictable and unimaginative.
-
Not necessarily. If a band is indeed great, they could change my mind. There are a number of bands I once hated who eventually won me over; My Morning Jacket is one of them.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I appreciate the mark Led Zeppelin left on the music world. And I appreciate the fact that they're better than many bands that followed their trail.
Yet, I fucking hate Led Zeppelin and Robert Plant's annoying wail of a voice and his whole squeeze the juice from my lemon legs schtick. You couldn't pay me enough to see them live, either now, or five years after their last show.
the point being, then, that you should not be sent to review a zep reunion show (if you were a concert reviewer). you're going to walk in resenting having to go, and will walk out hating the band even more - no matter how good a performance they put on. you might as well write your review before you even set foot in the venue... not unlike this malitz hipster-dude. it's predictable and unimaginative. [/b]
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
you might as well write your review before you even set foot in the venue... not unlike this malitz hipster-dude. it's predictable and unimaginative.
see, i disagree ... i read the review a second time and it seems to come not really from the perspective of a hater, but rather a disinterested observer being plopped down in the middle of a spectacle put on for die-hard fanboys (and i don't mean that pejoratively)
it's obvious that this show (or any of the residencies) wasn't for the "general public", but it was interesting to hear a John Q. Public's take on seeing all this bombast going on around him
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
But can't you have a level of appreciation for a band AND have negative preconceived notions about the band?
[/b]
Absolutely, but you probably shouldn't be doing write-ups about that band. You wouldn't send the food critic who hates Asian cuisine to review the hot new Chinese restaurant in town, would you?
-
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
i was just happy to hear about the concert from someone who had even the slightest possibility of objectivity after spending a week reading this board, that's all.
hoya, i appreciate your desire to read some non-fanboy reviews (we have been a tad rabid around here). but personally, i'm not convinced that this person is a good source, he seems more like an anti-fanboy (or someone looking to score points with other hispters by slagging off The Big Guy). this man seemed to have an agenda as obvious as any rabid fan's. again, my opinion... if the review worked for you, great, but i'm not sure that a truly un-opinionated attendee walked out as unimpressed as this guy was.
Originally posted by Shadrach:
Absolutely, but you probably shouldn't be doing write-ups about that band. You wouldn't send the food critic who hates Asian cuisine to review the hot new Chinese restaurant in town, would you?
or a vegetarian to review the new steakhouse.
-
Can we come up with board definition for "hipster"? People are deemed hipsters when they don't a band everyone else likes, and conversely when they like a band that everyone on here dislikes. I'm never sure which side of the coin I'm on.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
but personally, i'm not convinced that this person is a good source, he seems more like an anti-fanboy (or someone looking to score points with other hispters by slagging off The Big Guy).
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Can we come up with board definition for "hipster"? People are deemed hipsters when they don't a band everyone else likes, and conversely when they like a band that everyone on here dislikes. I'm never sure which side of the coin I'm on.
<img src="http://members.optusnet.com.au/alphawolfau/Funny_shit/Thread_hijack_live.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
If you use the word "hipster", you're more than likely one yourself.
Originally posted by nkotb:
Can we come up with board definition for "hipster"? People are deemed hipsters when they don't a band everyone else likes, and conversely when they like a band that everyone on here dislikes. I'm never sure which side of the coin I'm on.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
but personally, i'm not convinced that this person is a good source, he seems more like an anti-fanboy (or someone looking to score points with other hispters by slagging off The Big Guy).
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
Originally posted by Mobius:
[qb]
i liked the article because it was well-written, snarky, immensely funny, and an antidote to the recent flood of fawning posts
the whole setup of the concert was created for die-hard fans, which is totally and utterly cool (honestly, i'm not shitting on you for liking the pumpkins) and which is why the washpost review didn't jibe with your fellow concert-goers
i was just happy to hear about the concert from someone who had even the slightest possibility of objectivity after spending a week reading this board, that's all. [/b]
Ok, I respect that. But I completely disagree that the Post review was objective. The conclusions were broad and lazy, relying on assumptions about Billy Corgan and the reformed SP. I agree with what Shadrach said and will also point out that the the guy trashes the entire acoustic set relying on a quote from one song and not much else. What about the acoustic versions of Rocket and 33, at the least. They were great. The 'war crimes' line was 'funny' but it was snark for the sake of snark. If you thought 33 was a war crime, your opinion doesn't mean much on this subject - although you may be entertaining on some level.
But I also though Mr. Walalce was out of line saying the Beatles are the worst band ever.
-
I certainly wouldn't take it personally if this show got crappy review (wasn't there or trying to get tix) but this little nugget from the post pretty much proves that they went in there with the intnet to pan the show. Not that I doubt it was overblown and self indulgent at times, but they obviously sent in press that had it in for the band and probably would have given it a bad review no matter what.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102152.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102152.html)
-
I agree. I haven't read the article, b/c when I saw who reported, I wasn't surprised. The Post often reviews popular shows with intended negativity and slams...In my opinion, anyway.
(Remember one of the Ryan Adams' shows? The Post complete wanked on it and had the turn of events completely backwards.)
-
Originally posted by Greer Zoller:
The Post often reviews popular shows with intended negativity and slams...In my opinion, anyway.
I call this the Pitchfork Effect.
-
SP just can't sustain 3 hours and keep it interesting. I was bored out of my mind and only stayed to hear cherub rock. The crowd was full of people who cared more about documenting the show on their camera or cell phone for their blog than listening to the music (even though most of the new songs sound alike).
I think I would have been more frustrated if I didn't know what I was getting into. I knew it would be 3 hours. I knew he would play lots of new songs that I know I don't like very much. Knowing all this in advance and knowing Cherub Rock wouldn't come till the encore gave me a freedom to think about how much better the dismemberment plan and dinosaur jr. shows were. And how billy's stripes reminded me of beetlejuice. And the bassist looked like a prostitute out of the fifth element. And Jimmy Chamberlain uses the perfect amount of cymbal (not much).
1.5 hours minus all the new songs except doomsday clock would have been a much better show.
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
In my mind, "they band played too long" is not a valid argument. I hate Phish, but in my litany of complaints against Phish, I don't include, "man, their shows are indulgently long."
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Greer Zoller:
The Post often reviews popular shows with intended negativity and slams...In my opinion, anyway.
I call this the Pitchfork Effect. [/b]
Its also the Tony Kornheiser school of journalism. Just be negative and snarky in a literate way and no one will care that you're basically a hack.
-
Originally posted by Chip Chanko:
The crowd was full of people who cared more about documenting the show on their camera or cell phone for their blog than listening to the music.
I think that this is a good, astute observation that can be applied to 75% of every crowd at about 75% of all shows in 2007. A lot of people care more about being at the show and obtaining documentation that they are at the show than actually enjoying the moment and the music.
Originally posted by Mobius:
Its also the Tony Kornheiser school of journalism. Just be negative and snarky in a literate way and no one will care that you're basically a hack.
I guess it's a case of "hate your local" but as far as sportswriters go, I can think of 200 sportwriters more annoying and dickish than Tony K. Maybe that's because I don't read him everyday in the Post. You really think he's worse than Mitch Albom, Bob Ryan or Mike Lupica? I enjoy him on PTI. He doesn't take things as seriously as most sportswriters.
Brian
P.S. I love pure snarkiness. My favorite show is "The Showbiz Show with David Spade."
-
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
P.S. I love pure snarkiness. My favorite show is "The Showbiz Show with David Spade."
i love pure snarkiness too, as long as the author doesn't try passing himself off as anything other than that. too many reviewers and bloggers want us to take their auto-snarkiness seriously.
-
so since I started this thread and wasn't at the show (I forgot to buy tickets, not a huge fan of the band but wanted to see them).
Is James Iha no longer in this NEW SP? That's my understanding no?
-
Originally posted by smakawhat:
Is James Iha no longer in this NEW SP? That's my understanding no?
James and D'arcy are not in, correct.
-
But the new guy looks just like an Asian, and the new girl looks just like a slut.
Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:
Originally posted by smakawhat:
Is James Iha no longer in this NEW SP? That's my understanding no?
James and D'arcy are not in, correct. [/b]
-
Ah, now THAT's offsides. I've never heard anything about D'arcy's promiscuous habits. I HAVE heard that she's gotten a lot of plastic surgery.
Brian
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
But the new guy looks just like an Asian, and the new girl looks just like a slut.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
the new girl looks just like a slut.
I thought she looked like one of the Olsen twins.
-
I was just commenting on their appearances. The new guitarist isn't Asian as well, as best I can tell.
My point was they plugged in a slutty LOOKING bassist and Asian LOOKING guitarist.
Originally posted by Brian Wallace:
Ah, now THAT's offsides. I've never heard anything about D'arcy's promiscuous habits. I HAVE heard that she's gotten a lot of plastic surgery.
Brian
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
But the new guy looks just like an Asian, and the new girl looks just like a slut.
[/b]