so was the pumpkin show THAT bad... ??

[HoyaSaxa03]

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

[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.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

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]

[HoyaSaxa03]

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

[Shadrach]

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?

[sweetcell]

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.

[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).

[sweetcell]

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=" - " />

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

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]

[Mobius]

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.

[chaz]

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

[eltee]

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.)

[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.

[Chip Chanko]

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."

[Mobius]

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.