oh klosterpaws

Contrary to popular mythology, you don’t make good records when you’re crazy. You make them when you’re not.

A late entry for the worst two sentences of 2006.

Fixed.

this is the part that pisses me off the most. how could you even presume to say this about ANYONE'S life????

AT LEAST HE WASN'T HURTING OUR BRAINS WITH DUMBFUCK NONSENSE!

WAHT?

"Pete Townshend and The Who were busy inventing the modern notion of England."

A very silly quote indeed. ANYONE knows this was really the work of Pete Doherty.

no one?

"No one really disagrees that there's a stereotype about a correlation between rock music and insanity."

Instant improvement on my end, at least.

i'm leaving out his examples. "people assume". not "most people assume". not "a lot of people assume". just "people". meaning...everybody? does everyone assume this?

I'm assuming he means mentally unstable behavior in rock or pop or whatever. i would say there were plenty of cultural penalties depending on the behaviour. just being called "crazy" by people you don't know is some sort of penalty.

well, yeah. I think in context this is fine; the Who ref made above works the same way--he's pretty clearly talking about in pop music, rather than in the world.

the ACTUAL disconnect is perceived as "creativity"? how does that work? and why "mildly" insane? wouldn't people expect them to be really really really insane?

longwinded way of saying -- the article's main problem is that it reads like a template, and a very pedestrian one at that.

"Gilmour replaced Barrett in Pink Floyd but still tried to produce some of Syd’s ill-fated solo work in 1970"

"tried" "ill-fated"

Ultimately, it was not a detachment from reality that made them geniuses; detachment made them unproductive and vulnerable. Contrary to popular mythology, you don’t make good records when you’re crazy. You make them when you’re not.

Is he addressing more of a myth about Syd Barrett or Brian Wilson fans - that some romanticize mental illness as the context in which this great music was created - than the reality? The crazy/not crazy and crazy=not good/not crazy = good binaries are very simplistic and banal.

the first paragraph is a trainwreck of logical fallacy and unsupported assertion.

conflating Ozzy (socially dysfunctional person w/ennablers) and Daniel Johnston (diagnosed mentally ill person) doesn't hold up if you think about it for a minute or two.

I'd say Courtney Love has surely paid a cultural price for mentally unstable behavior.

his [Syd Barrett]disaffected, hyper-British vocal delivery has influenced singers who’ve never even heard his records

how does this work? sounds nice, but it doesn't make sense.

And I agree with Scott, K's characterization of Barrett's downward spiral is offensive. The implication is that he just spaced out. While there is disagreement among those who knew him about the nature and cause of Syd's condition, anyone who's known a schizophrenic or deeply disturbed person will recognize Syd.

and if the main thing he's remember for is being crazy, if he's been in effect dead for 35 years how could he be so influential?

and the Landy stuff is just too simplistic and glib, a reductive take on a complex situation. Landy's methods were creepy and controlling -- he deserved to lose his license -- but I bet even Brian Wilson would acknowledge that some good came from it. he got off drugs and started on the path to the better place he's in now.

Brian Wilson broke, too (several times). Unlike Barrett, he did get fixed; unfortunately, that process made things worse.

It's serviceable, but I'd rather the article actually came at Landy from the opposite angle, as a controversial therapist who ended up changing the course of a musician's life rather than introducing Brian Wilson first and trying to use him as a parallel to Syd Barrett. It seems a little too reductive and leaves out the meat of Landy's story. And makes it sound like it's about Brian Wilson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/magazine/31naked.t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The Naked Guy obit is incredibly sad.

someone was still high on crack when he pushed the publish button.

Which might be why some of the picking-on here is to totally off-base: Coleman, do you seriously not understand how someone's vocal style can be a secondhand influence people who never heard him? I mean, if that doesn't make sense to you, you should blame your grade-school teachers, not Klosterman. (The good news is that if you think about it long enough, you will suddenly realize why so many American punk bands since Green Day have singers who sound like they're about to cover "Alternative Ulster.")

In-thread comparison to the wonderful obit for Naked Guy isn't doing the piece any favors, either...

xpost It's fairly banal, in the way that his stuff is often banal, but at least the conclusion he's pushing here -- that contrary to popular imagination (and don't kid yourself that this isn't the popular imagination), craziness is a hindrance to the craft of making art -- is one that seems true and useful, if not exactly revelatory. I mean, usually his stuff is banal in a way that seems actively wrong to me.

during the thread, we have piling on, ILM...the question will be placed 15 posts from the spot of the foul...we will repeat first post...

Worst People Who Will Not Be Missed:
Augusto Pinochet, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Markus Wolf, P.W. Botha (gets the gasface!), Ta Mok, Ken Lay, Eugene Landy

except for the fact that his examples are people who made great music when they WEREN'T FEELING SO GOOD.

OK seriously, this is the second time this has been said, and it still mystifies me. What on earth are you guys having trouble with in that statement? The claim is that Barrett is the starting point for that whole whimsical-English-psych voice, a commonplace that's spread far beyond the pool of people who ever much listened to Syd Barrett: I think that's absolutely inarguably true. (I know I personally could have recognized "whimsical-English-psych voice," in parody or imitation, well before I ever knew who Syd Barrett was.) So, like ... WTF is the problem with that line?

this is bullshit too. jesus, they dragged him to holland to help them record. seems like some people still felt he was pretty meaningful. granted, he was a mess and no mastermind anymore, but he contributes to every album they make in the early 70's with singing, old songs, new songs, crazy-ass radio plays(!!), etc. i don't think any "sane" person would write off brian+beachboyz circa 1970-1976.

I really don't think people romanticize mental illness. There is a sort of psychological journey that is a meaningful aspect of the music of Brian Wilson and Syd Barrett, but mental illness and suffering were not necessary components of the journey.

This I'm not sure about. Do you hear "Help Me Rhonda" or "I Get Around" and think about an insane genius? The Beach Boys that 95% of America likes and cares about sounds like the work of a sane man, I reckon. Only indie rockers have trouble separating Wilson's madness from his Brilliance.

also: speeeed to roam OTM

Yeah see this may be one of those general-impression things that we could go back and forth on, but good lord do I think people do when it comes to artists (and dead ones in particular) -- maybe less so in the case of full-on visibly debilitating mental illness (though god knows Johnston and even Willis have had their romanticizers), but definitely in the case of low-level maybe-so-maybe-not illness. (Half the time it's just an extension of the quite-similar "suffering makes better artists" romanticizing.) Like I said, this was run a page or two over from another article teasing at the same thing (and for the record I hate the tendency displayed in the other, this thing where we look at century-old oil paintings and diagnose the painters' psychiatric ailments like they're abused children being given the "draw a person" test), which kind of nuzzled around the same issue, and also brought up Woolf in those terms. (Its subject's somewhat lame conclusion was something like "well you know the experience of depression can bring someone face to face with certain existential questions in a really vivid way that's probably a helpful perspective when making art.")

That's like something an art critic in a Woody Allen movie would say.

crediting /= "writing off"

and the work of someone who probably isn't a fan. it would have been nice if they had gotten someone who was interested in his work to write the thing.

yes, only REAL TRUE FANBOYS can write about musicians. what a bunch of bullshit.

cuz for a lot of people, "going crazy" ISN'T what he is best remembered for.

and for even more, it is.

and as far as Landy goes, fuck him, they shouldn't have wasted the ink.

yes, Eugene Landy didn't play a significant role in the life and career of a significant musician. let's ignore him entirely.

?

xp

are you Kathleen Wilson?

xpost: bill, I'm having fun with it too! we're on the same page.

Stence, I'm not claiming it's well-written or revelatory; like I said, it's in the bottom "meh" 5% of obits in there. I can't make a good call on whether it makes the subjects interesting, because everyone here already knows the subjects; I think it could well be interesting to people who don't. And I don't necessarily think the music coverage here is significantly sub-par compared to that on other topics; for all we know, there are message boards full of nudists, ocean topographers, female bodybuilders, or non-dairy creamer enthusiasts bitching about other items in there. (I'd agree that the publication just isn't as in touch with music as it is with other topics, sure, but that's its identity as a publication, and I don't find the music coverage like surprisingly sub-par.)

So but anyway yeah, I don't think this is exactly a triumph, or even that good compared to the others (Bazelon's Friedan one was really cleverly constructed and had a perfect ending) -- I'm just not entirely sure it needs a whole thread where we point and laugh at it. And more importantly, I'm saying a lot of the criticisms being aimed at it here seem really off-base to me. I mean, saying it's kind of surfacey and uninteresting seems appropriate and fine; being appalled by the "influenced people who never heard him" thing seems kinda knee-jerk and dumb, and saying "b-b-but Wilson contributed to 70s Beach Boys" seems like a desire to include a bunch of nuance that's unnecessary to the big picture and probably rightly skimmed out of a one-page piece. I'm not defending it as "good" -- I just find these particular complaints kinda weirdo, and I imagine that if anyone but Klosterman had written this, we'd all just flip past it in context and go "ehh, whatever, that one wasn't very good."

it's pretty clear from what i wrote that i don't find the nytimes sunday mag music coverage to be "sub-par," but rather just okay (ie not raelly my bag but okay for a general interest mag with a big readership). but that shoulda been obvious by what i wrote, if you, like, read it.

So but anyway yeah, I don't think this is exactly a triumph, or even that good compared to the others (Bazelon's Friedan one was really cleverly constructed and had a perfect ending) -- I'm just not entirely sure it needs a whole thread where we point and laugh at it.

why not? this is ilm, it's an obit piece about a very influential musician and a musician-cum-psychiatrist who "treated" one of america's most successful and loved musicians. where else should it be discussed? and why should it not be open to ridicule, if it's discussed? what makes klosterfuck so special that what he writes should be above criticism?

And more importantly, I'm saying a lot of the criticisms being aimed at it here seem really off-base to me.

why do you modify that sentence with "and more importantly?" all that otm-ing must've gone to your head, dude. it's fine if you find it "off-base" that people have bones to pick with this piece, but i don't see why you disagreeing is "important," at least not as potentially important as to why you might disagree.

I mean, saying it's kind of surfacey and uninteresting seems appropriate and fine; being appalled by the "influenced people who never heard him" thing seems kinda knee-jerk and dumb, and saying "b-b-but Wilson contributed to 70s Beach Boys" seems like a desire to include a bunch of nuance that's unnecessary to the big picture and probably rightly skimmed out of a one-page piece.

i'm saying that not only is it bad writing to get those details wrong, but it'd probably be considered insulting to any other subject besides music! why is that still the case in 2007?

I'm not defending it as "good" -- I just find these particular complaints kinda weirdo, and I imagine that if anyone but Klosterman had written this, we'd all just flip past it in context and go "ehh, whatever, that one wasn't very good."

right, right, whatever. first off, as i posted up there, klosterfuck shouldn't be immune to criticism - nor singled out for it, necessarily, despite his awful track record (does he even like anything? aside from being proud of himself for having awful taste, that is). but you're nuts if you think anybody's singled this out specifically because it was written by him. it's a bad piece, period, and that would be true even if it was written by someone who didn't mostly (if not completely) suck.

Anyway, we don't have to go over whether Klosterman's "immune to criticism," cuz god knows nobody's saying he isn't -- I think all I'm saying (and maybe Matos too?) is that ... well, I'll say that personally I don't see what's that offensively lousy about this piece, and that if we had a thread for every NYTMag article that was kinda hand-wavy and boring we'd be here for a long while, etc. -- I dunno, I feel like it should be clear where I'm coming from, but judging from your last post, maybe not? Whatever. The one about the body-building lady bugged me way more than this one.

Which only proves that Klosterman = Superstar Celebrity Rock Journo God. Not that anyone here was ever in the dark about that...

I would guess that anybody influenced by Barrett through a secondhand source -- like say Robin Hitchcock -- would eventually search out the original, esp. give the amount of proselytising done in Barrett's behalf. Every dumb high school kid who bought Wish You Were Here had a definite sense of who Barrett was.

so pick on whoever was against that comparison, not me, i felt that was one of the few spot-on (if not exactly revelatory) things in the obit.

and I guarantee you that nuances like "but Wilson still contributed somewhat to 70s records" got left out of every other piece in here that boiled someone's lifetime down to five paragraphs! Saying "yeah, Wilson's creative input was kinda shot by then" strikes me as less of a "wrong detail" and more of the kind of big-picture compression that's necessary for a piece that's not even centrally about him.

it's more than five paragraphs and it completely discounts the fact that wilson's "smile" was one of last year's most lauded records. i know critics are the pretend art of forgetfulness, but come on man. if anything perhaps there should've been something in the piece about how ultimately neither his illness nor landy's completely fucked care was able to diminish wilson's creative powers? i dunno, maybe yeah save that for wilson's obit and not landy's, but i think it's worth sayin'.

Anyway, we don't have to go over whether Klosterman's "immune to criticism," cuz god knows nobody's saying he isn't -- I think all I'm saying (and maybe Matos too?) is that ... well, I'll say that personally I don't see what's that offensively lousy about this piece,

maybe what you should be saying is you don't give a fuck about wilson, landy or barrett, rather than protesting that you're not trying to save-a-klosterfuck? and really, why is it so outlandish that people who do care for, well, at least 2 of those 3 might find this piece banal, simplistic, uninteresting and lame? is it so hard to understand why even casual fans of barrett and wilson might find it, y'know, crap?

and that if we had a thread for every NYTMag article that was kinda hand-wavy and boring we'd be here for a long while, etc.

we pretty much do already, i remember scott (damn you seward!) started a thread about that sunn0)) article i mentioned upthread! and wtf, this is ilm, is there all of a sudden an embargo on discussing music criticism? i dunno about you but i'd rather read threads like this that actually discuss something as opposed to say, some shmuck's list.

-- I dunno, I feel like it should be clear where I'm coming from, but judging from your last post, maybe not? Whatever. The one about the body-building lady bugged me way more than this one.

i didn't even read that one! but it looked way more interesting than klosterfuck's uh clusterfuck. maybe i'll read it tonight.

yeah, really. although, i have given myself a self-imposed limit of two new york times-related rants per calendar year. so i only get one more in 07. i didn't read all of the obits in the magazine, but this definitely stuck out as the worst that i read. seriously, it reads like 5 minutes of google/wiki "research". it reads like he's never even HEARD barrett before. which could actually be the case. and, okay, a "fanboy" writing it might have been worse, but i doubt it. just somebody, anybody (david fricke, maybe?), who has some sense of why syd's stuff is so long-lasting and how his music made an impact on 60's rock and beyond. till today! prog, psych, metal, indie-rock and on and on. klosterman's cult of the artist bugaboo is almost as tired as artist as crazy-ass shaman anyway. and, yeah, like matos said, maybe most people do know barrett more as a myth and all that crazy diamond stuff, but this kinda article is the reason why! trotting out the same tired lore and anecdotes that will never ever be as exciting or as interesting as the music he made. so, that's all i hope for as a fan. someone who takes the music and art seriously and gives someone who was talented their due. in a remembrance anyway! and i get matos's point that landy is good material, but he's a footnote. a footnote that belongs in a wilson bio. syd doesn't deserve being paired with him. someone who has been giving people nothing but pleasure for over 40 years does NOT need to be remembered as someone who "couldn't do anything". and that's why i started this thread.

NYTIMES EDITORS HIRE THIS MAN INSTEAD OF KLOSTERFUCK NEXT TIME, PLS.

^^^^This is basically my stance here.

But Stence, saying that Barrett's voice influenced people who didn't know of him is not a "wrong detail," it's demonstrably k-correct

It may be correct, and I obviously understand his implication I just protest the way he said it. No big thing. If I was his editor I would have said something like: I get what you are saying, but it reads pretty stupid and maybe you should change the wording around.

so not otm.

Damn, you're right, I'd forgotten about that! Something to catch up on.

That's all.

Okay, I'm coming in late, but WTF? Of course it's about his tone and not his points. KLOSTERMAN is about his tone and not his points!

In the rare cases when he has any... Reading him can be mildly pleasant, in the way that having a VH1 list show on in the background while doing other things can be mildly pleasant, or intensely aggravating, in the way that a VH1 list show inspires atavistic blood-fury if you actually pay attention to anything the talking heads say.

Joan Didion wept.