oh klosterpaws

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Syd Barrett | b. 1946
Eugene Landy | b. 1934
Off-Key


By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN
Published: December 31, 2006

No one really disputes the correlation between rock music and insanity. At this point, people assume that most unconventional rock performers are either authentically crazy (Ozzy Osbourne, Daniel Johnston), preoccupied with seeming crazy (Prince, Iggy Pop) or trapped somewhere in between (Axl Rose, Courtney Love). Most of the time, there is no cultural penalty for mentally unstable behavior. Very often, a disconnect from reality is perceived as creativity; musical geniuses are expected to be mildly insane. The problem is that when this cliché reaches its inevitable conclusion — when a musician’s charming psychosis devolves into profound mental illness — the symbiotic relationship between vision and lunacy collapses like a black hole.


Syd Barrett is remembered for lots of things: he named Pink Floyd (originally casting the band as the Pink Floyd Sound), he wrote most of the band’s debut album and he inspired the song “Shine On You Crazy Diamond” seven years after being jettisoned from the group. He was a painter and a psychedelic pioneer, and his disaffected, hyper-British vocal delivery has influenced singers who’ve never even heard his records. But the main thing Barrett is remembered for is losing his mind during the late 1960s; when he finally succumbed to pancreatic cancer last July, it felt as if he had already been dead for 35 years. For more than three decades, the progenitor of a band that eventually sold more than 200 million albums lived in Cambridge, England, with his mother, content to ignore modernity and focus on gardening.

“He functions on a totally different plane of logic,” David Gilmour once told the British journalist Nick Kent. Gilmour replaced Barrett in Pink Floyd but still tried to produce some of Syd’s ill-fated solo work in 1970; they had been friends as teenagers. “Some people will claim, ‘Well, yeah, man, he’s on a higher cosmic level,’ but basically there’s something drastically wrong,” Gilmour said. “It wasn’t just the drugs.” In a subsequent interview with The National Post, Gilmour wondered if the strobe lights used in Floyd’s stage show might have prompted some kind of photo-epilepsy. For whatever reason, Barrett mentally disappeared; the person who envisioned “The Piper at the Gates of Dawn,” the first Pink Floyd album, had been replaced by a disinterested clone, a man who preferred to stare into nothingness while repeating the same guitar note ad nauseam, regardless of what song the rest of the band happened to be playing. Syd Barrett broke, and he never got fixed.

Brian Wilson broke, too (several times). Unlike Barrett, he did get fixed; unfortunately, that process made things worse. Wilson spent half of the 1960s writing flawless pop symphonies and inventing, with the other Beach Boys, the modern notion of California; he spent the other half dropping acid, playing piano in a sandbox and losing his mind. (The fact that his father had physically and psychologically abused him for years probably didn’t help.) His meaningful involvement with the Beach Boys was over by 1969, partly because he refused to climb out of bed. In 1975, his desperate wife enlisted the help of a therapist named Eugene Landy.


This decision probably saved Wilson’s life. And that would be a wholly admirable achievement on Landy’s part, were it not for the fact that he proceeded to take total control of the life he resurrected.

Landy’s method of treatment (a system he called “milieu therapy”) was extremely aggressive and adversarial; he threw water on the musician to get him out of bed. At first, this tough love got results: in 1976, the Beach Boys recorded the album “15 Big Ones,” and for the first time since 1964, Wilson traveled with the group on tour. But by 1982, things had collapsed again, and Wilson had somehow managed to become a 340-pound cocaine addict. Landy was called back. This time, his approach was even more radical: he isolated Wilson in Hawaii, prescribed him high doses of psychotropic drugs and proceeded to reconstitute his understanding of existence.

Landy conducted clandestine 24-hour therapy sessions; for years, he and Wilson lived together. Every conversation — every action — was an extension of the program. When Wilson appeared in public, Landy held up cardboard signs that told him how to feel (they said things like “POSITIVE” and “SMILE”). If Landy wasn’t around, Wilson was shadowed by two musclebound assistants. (When Lindsey Buckingham of Fleetwood Mac tried to work with Wilson in the late ’80s, he called these henchmen “surf Nazis.”) Over time, Wilson took to referring to Landy as “my master” and turned over to him the reins of his semiresurrected career. Landy (who managed the jazz guitarist George Benson during the 1960s) began writing Wilson’s lyrics and taking 50 percent of his earnings, plus a monthly $35,000 fee. He became the beneficiary of the musician’s will. He produced Wilson’s 1988 solo record and engineered Wilson’s ghost-written autobiography, “Wouldn’t It Be Nice — My Own Story,” much of which lionized the brilliance of Dr. Eugene Landy. (Later, Wilson would admit that he didn’t even read the book he supposedly helped write.)

“People don’t know how to really justify the fact that he’s returned so completely, so they have to give it some sort of media concept that says Svengali-type brainwashing,” Landy would later say to critics of his methods. “But if I washed his brain, I’ve certainly washed out all the drugs, all the obese characteristics he had, his eating problems, his smoking problems, all the trouble that he had in his much-publicized prior life. We’ve washed it clean to be a healthy whole human being. If that’s brainwashing, then — yes, that’s what we did.”

Landy was accused by Wilson’s family of “grossly negligent conduct” for his treatment of the singer, and in 1989 he voluntarily surrendered his license to practice psychology in California. Wilson remained reverentially enamored with Landy throughout the ’90s, but he eventually renounced his “master” and now describes his years with the therapist in the language of a prisoner. Landy disappeared to New Mexico and Hawaii, where he practiced psychology until his death.

As with Barrett, it is difficult to separate Wilson’s madness from his brilliance; the two qualities seem completely intertwined, and that can make the music both men created feel unworldly and romantic. But in the end, which quality took over: madness or genius? Which quality dictated their careers? Barrett became a man who couldn’t do anything. Wilson became a man who’d do anything Eugene Landy told him to do. 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.

scott seward (121212), Monday, 1 January 2007 16:15 (seventeen years ago) link

i can't wait for his new course at the new school: Stuff I Heard About Syd Barrett In The 6th Grade From Somebody's Older Brother 101.

scott seward (121212), Monday, 1 January 2007 16:16 (seventeen years ago) link

hahaha yeah i read that and was like wtf? the best is how the tone of the piece sorta indicates that brian wilson's dead. at least, maybe creatively.

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Monday, 1 January 2007 16:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Where's Momus when you need him?

Ice Ice Cream Baby (The Dirty Vicar), Monday, 1 January 2007 18:22 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh god, I didn't even notice who wrote it when I saw that yesterday! ARRRRRGH.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 1 January 2007 18:25 (seventeen years ago) link

like momus even knows who eugene landy, or klosterpawsfuck for that matter, is.

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Monday, 1 January 2007 18:37 (seventeen years ago) link

thank christ klusterfux didn't eulogize james brown.

the damnation of mark coleman (lovebug ), Monday, 1 January 2007 19:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Give it a week.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 1 January 2007 19:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Who was desperate enough to publish this?

milo (milo), Monday, 1 January 2007 19:59 (seventeen years ago) link

The struggling upstart journal known as the New York Times.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 1 January 2007 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link

O GOD

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.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver (hoosteen), Monday, 1 January 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link

By PAUL EDWARD WAGEMANN

Fixed.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Monday, 1 January 2007 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

"Barrett became a man who couldn’t do anything."

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!

scott seward (121212), Monday, 1 January 2007 20:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Klosterman and Petridis to do US/UK exchange program please.

Dom Passantino (DomPassantino), Monday, 1 January 2007 21:36 (seventeen years ago) link

i don't get how that gets published. can someone pls explain? call me naive or whatever but i truly don't understand and feel like there's a reason. like they must know its weird and bullshit, so...why? b/c people need conclusions where there is art? it sounds like he's desperate trying to make it all fit together which of course it doesn't, couldn't ever, so then he just goes gonzo, which is sorta understandable.

Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Monday, 1 January 2007 21:50 (seventeen years ago) link

I've never felt so unwilling to continue an article after reading the first line.

Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Monday, 1 January 2007 22:13 (seventeen years ago) link

No one really disputes the correlation between rock journalism and inanity.

Marmot (marmotwolof), Monday, 1 January 2007 22:15 (seventeen years ago) link

inventing, with the other Beach Boys, the modern notion of California

WAHT?

Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Monday, 1 January 2007 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Nathaniel West to thread

a_p (a_p), Monday, 1 January 2007 22:23 (seventeen years ago) link

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

Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Monday, 1 January 2007 22:23 (seventeen years ago) link

x-post -- The Day of the Kloster

"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.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 1 January 2007 22:24 (seventeen years ago) link

Kolostoman, you are K-RAZEE one

bliss (blass), Monday, 1 January 2007 22:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I haven't seen one objection here yet that really holds water. What, precisely, is so bad about this piece?

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Monday, 1 January 2007 23:41 (seventeen years ago) link

you want to go line for line?

scott seward (121212), Monday, 1 January 2007 23:55 (seventeen years ago) link

sure!

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Monday, 1 January 2007 23:58 (seventeen years ago) link

"No one really disputes the correlation between rock music and insanity."

no one?

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:01 (seventeen years ago) link

wow, rhetorical phrasing. that's new. next?

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Matos, c'mon. That opening line deserves a kick in the teeth. OR, maybe, it deserves a rewrite like so:

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

Instant improvement on my end, at least.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:04 (seventeen years ago) link

"At this point, people assume that most unconventional rock performers are either authentically crazy, preoccupied with seeming crazy or trapped somewhere in between."

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?

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:05 (seventeen years ago) link

haha "Matos, c'mon."

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:06 (seventeen years ago) link

Vamanos, Matos, o'er the fields we go...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:06 (seventeen years ago) link

"Most of the time, there is no cultural penalty for mentally unstable behavior."

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.

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:08 (seventeen years ago) link

So this is about his tone and not his points, I'm gathering; that makes sense. I'm not especially bothered by the way he uses that rhetoric because I'm used to seeing it--it sort of becomes invisible to me--and it can be effective. (xpost with the last couple)

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:10 (seventeen years ago) link

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.

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:11 (seventeen years ago) link

"Very often, a disconnect from reality is perceived as creativity; musical geniuses are expected to be mildly insane."

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?

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:13 (seventeen years ago) link

with some tinkering of biographical details, this could've been the obituary for ol' dirty bastard. or phil spector, peter green, kool keith, or any other "crazy" musician when any of them die. all of which including the "analysis" of brian wilson.

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

Eisbär (Eisbär), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:16 (seventeen years ago) link

eh, i could go on. he's just way too reductive and way too broad all at the same time. i wouldn't even care probably if he was funny.


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

"tried" "ill-fated"

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:17 (seventeen years ago) link

What about the conclusion?

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.

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:20 (seventeen years ago) link

(And that conclusion, of course, was what he was leading up to and seemingly the point of the whole thing.)

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 00:20 (seventeen years ago) link

can I pile on?

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.


the damnation of mark coleman (lovebug ), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 01:10 (seventeen years ago) link

newspaper journalism in reducing complexities of life and art to formulaic cliches non-shocker

the damnation of mark coleman (lovebug ), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 01:18 (seventeen years ago) link

at least in terms of iraq, no one gets hurt. oh wait.

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 01:53 (seventeen years ago) link

A small list of rock/pop musicians often tagged with the term "genius" but generally not thought of as insane, mildly or otherwise: Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Brian Eno.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 01:57 (seventeen years ago) link

holy shit i swear klosterman just walked right past my desk here at work WTF.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver (hoosteen), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 02:42 (seventeen years ago) link

maybe it was corey feldman or dianne wiest

bohren un der club of gear (bohren un der club of gear), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 02:48 (seventeen years ago) link

beardo uniform & all srsly

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver (hoosteen), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 02:56 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.gothamist.com/interview/interview/images/klosterman_large.jpg

amon (amon), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 03:29 (seventeen years ago) link

klosterman didn't really think about it, did he. crazy, not crazy? what does that mean? it's like, dude, don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for contradicting popular mythology when the contradition you've unearthed is every bit as trite

dar1a g (dar1a g), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 03:43 (seventeen years ago) link

This is a lot better than most Klosterman stuff, but isn't it just a really reductive cliff's notes version of two lives with a poor point of connection? It reminds me of one of my college essays, with one bridging sentence that sounds more like it's trying to tie together a thesis than connect two deaths:

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.

mh (mike h.), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 03:44 (seventeen years ago) link

It makes it sound like the main difference between Wilson and Barrett is Landy.

Not For Use as Infant Nog (A-Ron Hubbard), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 03:46 (seventeen years ago) link

Legend has it "kloster" is a medieval Dutch word for "straw"

f. scott baio (natepatrin), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 05:03 (seventeen years ago) link

(though this article and articles like it are pretty good reasons for me to be afraid of waking up one morning and realizing I write like that)

f. scott baio (natepatrin), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 05:05 (seventeen years ago) link

What's the news peg here?

Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 06:06 (seventeen years ago) link

and meanwhile, the obit piece in the same issue of the times magazine on the death of the famed "naked guy" was truly disturbing and sad. and well written. at least they gave one "crazy" guy a proper send-off.

SKOTROK (Maria :D), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 06:12 (seventeen years ago) link

naked guy piece:

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

Maria :D (Maria :D), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 06:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Dang. You're quite right. :-/

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 06:20 (seventeen years ago) link

great article, thanks for the link. I remember that guy.

sleeve (sleeve), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 07:38 (seventeen years ago) link

Klosterman seems to understand very little at all about mental illness.

The Naked Guy obit is incredibly sad.

Tiki Theater Xymposium (Tiki Theater Xymposium), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 08:44 (seventeen years ago) link

The article reminds me of that awesome thread on ILM about A-List rock-crit cliches. The one with all the Dave Q posts.

Tim F (Tim F), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 09:13 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean the Klosterman article and old proper ILM there.

Tim F (Tim F), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 09:13 (seventeen years ago) link

Published: December 31, 2006

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

nathalie (stevienixed), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 09:17 (seventeen years ago) link

if he's on the toilet when he's talking to the editor, do they print the farts?

they call me candle guy (kenan), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 09:35 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm officially with Matos on this one: this wasn't exactly the stand-out obit/essay in this weekend's NYTMag, but nothing about it strikes me as particularly wrongheaded or worth picking on.

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.")

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:18 (seventeen years ago) link

P.S. It's worth noting that this piece is preceded by one about whats-his-face, the psychiatrist who went plumbing great painters for signs of clinical depression, so a good bit of cross-obit angle-engineering certainly seems to have been done.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:23 (seventeen years ago) link

I guess this is probably true of all obits, but there's not a single observation in this piece that's insightful. A passing knowledge of Barrett and Landy is all that's needed to connect these dots, although frankly I'm not sure why anyone would want to. It's almost as though he had two separate obits and decided it would easier to sew them together because, "hey, crazy people!"

Jay (jaymacke), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:33 (seventeen years ago) link

Agree that the Klosterman piece isn't uniquely or even particularly bad. But it is boring, thoughtless, thrown-together crap, and thus totally worth picking on. (Said as someone who frequently enjoys K's writing.)

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

adam beales (pye poudre), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:35 (seventeen years ago) link

It's almost as though he had two separate obits and decided it would easier to sew them together because, "hey, crazy people!" it appeared in a theme issue of the NYTMag composed entirely of essay-style reflections on the year's death

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.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:40 (seventeen years ago) link

oh my god that naked guy piece just made me cry

Matt Cibula (Formerly, the Haikunym), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:43 (seventeen years ago) link

(xpost -- yeah nabisco, I only read it here, and it doesn't scan that way out of context)

Jay (jaymacke), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link

as a barrett fan it's definitely worth picking on. musically, visually, lyrically, vocally, his influence was VAST. writing him off as someone who named the band, wrote most of a debut album, and recorded "ill-fated" solo work is just silly. 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. cuz for a lot of people, "going crazy" ISN'T what he is best remembered for. and as far as Landy goes, fuck him, they shouldn't have wasted the ink. hell, his name was in lights on the cover of the magazine.

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:48 (seventeen years ago) link

ihttp://images.sportsnetwork.com/football/nfl/allsport/referee.jpg

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...

henry s (henry s), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:51 (seventeen years ago) link

pre-saddam and gerald ford, i had this on year-end lists:

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

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link

"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."

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

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link

the "influencing singers who have never heard his voice" seems particularly stupid, even for klosterpaws. also, i have no idea what "authentically crazy" means, but I suspect to Klosterpaws it means "batshit insane," which again, does not really mean anything. i second the fact that he seems to know nothing about mental illness.

Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:53 (seventeen years ago) link

the "influencing singers who have never heard his voice" seems particularly stupid, even for klosterpaws.

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?

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:05 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, i don't have any problem with that. that's true of anyone widely imitated.

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:06 (seventeen years ago) link

"His meaningful involvement with the Beach Boys was over by 1969, partly because he refused to climb out of bed."

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.

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:13 (seventeen years ago) link

plus, i'm sick of sane people always trying to prove that they're cooler than crazy people. we get it, being sane is better. "sure, picasso made some good paintings, but have you seen the paint stains in his studio, those were NEVER going to come out." fuck off, norms!

scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:27 (seventeen years ago) link

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

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.

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:27 (seventeen years ago) link

"it is difficult to separate Wilson’s madness from his brilliance".

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.

Mark (Mark R), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:28 (seventeen years ago) link

i wish klosterman would fall off a building and into a cannon aimed at a volcano

bohren un der club of gear (bohren un der club of gear), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:30 (seventeen years ago) link

i totally think people romanticize mental illness, especially with regards to artists. see Cat Power, Jeff Tweedy, Virginia Woolf, etc. etc.

also: speeeed to roam OTM

Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Or maybe some suffering is a part of the journey - is a part of the human experience - I don't know. But mental illness was not a necessary component of the journey. It's the journey that people are drawn to.

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, unless they're nihilits! : D

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:33 (seventeen years ago) link

nihilists even

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:34 (seventeen years ago) link

I really don't think people romanticize mental illness.

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.")

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 20:30 (seventeen years ago) link

"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.

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 20:37 (seventeen years ago) link

i bet klosterfuck really loved "what about bob?".

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link

musically, visually, lyrically, vocally, his influence was VAST. writing him off as someone who named the band, wrote most of a debut album, and recorded "ill-fated" solo work is just silly.

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.

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 21:44 (seventeen years ago) link

matos, we await your rehabilitation of Jim DeRo - hop to it!

bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:14 (seventeen years ago) link

yes, by no means should anyone question anyone else's opinion on a public forum.

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:35 (seventeen years ago) link

dude, just teasing, question away (but watch yer blood pressure)

bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:39 (seventeen years ago) link

(but watch yer blood pressure)

?

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:43 (seventeen years ago) link

you seem a little testy, but i guess that's just you being you, never mind

bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Dudes-who-aren't-Matos, the problem here is that amid loads of stuff Klosterman's written that probably is deserving of some picking-on, this piece really is a fairly serviceable boilerplate fulfillment of its role in the document in which it was published, and probably not worth much more exasperation than a shrug and a "meh" and a flip to the next page. Context is part of it: some of the criticisms being offered here might be relevant in a music magazine, but are completely off-the-wall for a page-and-a-half dual obit packaged as one of a couple dozen in a general interest magazine. (In other words, this isn't exactly music criticism you're reading, it's general journalism.) The other part is that a lot of the criticisms I'm seeing about this seem like really good evidence of why Klosterman writes for the NYTMag and why the people criticizing him here don't: i.e., if you think fanboy specificity and bold opinions and "don't waste a drop of ink on this subject" are a good approach to contributing to an issue like this, then at least don't be surprised that Klosterman's the name you see in these publications. (For instance, if ten seconds ago you were thinking "well but of course it should be 'music criticism,' it's about music," then there's some kind of know-your-audience / know-your-venue craftsmanship that might be problematically absent from your makeup.)

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link

sorry nabisco but i think it's pretty lousy for a general-interest mag, too. why should music and/or musicians as subjects get subpar coverage compared to anything else in the nytimes sunday mag? i mean shit their every once in a while "this-is-the-cool-music-that-the-kids-like" 3-4 page features (think sunn0)) this summer) are at least well written, if not exactly revelatory. this piece by klosterfuck is neither well written nor revelatory nor even manages to make the subjects interesting! which is pretty much against the whole point of the year-end obit issue!

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:52 (seventeen years ago) link

OK, but I don't think a lack of "fanboy specificity" and "bold opinions" are the main reasons the thing has been criticized on the thread so much as the banal pontificating about madness and genius. Surely, no one's going to argue that the context and the venue necessitated that.

xp

Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:55 (seventeen years ago) link

you seem a little testy, but i guess that's just you being you, never mind

are you Kathleen Wilson?

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:57 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah a barrett fanboy's obit would probably be worse than klosterfuck's. but at least get someone with a pulse to write it, pls!

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah I mean I could give a shit why the Times picked Klosterman for the piece--I just think it's a lame crappy piece. I refuse to shrug when it comes to the NYTimes. They could have picked plenty of writers who would have done a much better job.

Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:58 (seventeen years ago) link

you keep putting a negative spin on my posts, no offense intended matos (i'll leave now before this descends into some joe pesci/goodfellas "why do you think i'm funny" deal)
xpost

bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:01 (seventeen years ago) link

btw I like the direction this thread has taken and I do appreciate Scott's responses a lot, even the ones I disagree with. "I just think it's a lame crappy piece" is a lot more interesting than "it's obviously and without any need for explanation a lame crappy piece" to me, somehow.

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

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:03 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost

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."

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:05 (seventeen years ago) link

(is it time to bring back the big winky? maybe) xpost

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Also, like I said, Klosterman does not have the market cornered on banal pontificating in this issue or in the NYTMag as a whole! I mean, I don't want to get into the business of holding people to content standards too much higher than the publications allow, or else we'll spend all day laughing at bad prose in USA Today Life section trend-pieces or something.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:12 (seventeen years ago) link

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.)

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.

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:26 (seventeen years ago) link

i mean shit if god forbid someone who i actually liked and admired wrote such a pablum piece, it'd be a greater travesty!

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:30 (seventeen years ago) link

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, 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.

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.

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:39 (seventeen years ago) link

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/magazine/31stockton.t.html

nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:42 (seventeen years ago) link

This article is totally not worth the blood that has been spilled in its name. Sure, it's not very good, but then, it isn't very anything. It just kind of sits there on the plate like a poached chiken lung.

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

adam beales (pye poudre), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:46 (seventeen years ago) link

ha I wouldn't have guessed Nabisco would go Capt Save-A-Hack.

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.

m coleman (lovebug ), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 01:35 (seventeen years ago) link

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,

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.

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 01:43 (seventeen years ago) link

"it felt as if he had already been dead for 35 years" is a horrible thing to say.

dqdq (dqdq), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 01:50 (seventeen years ago) link

"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."

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.

scott seward (121212), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 04:35 (seventeen years ago) link

well written, scott.

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

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 04:55 (seventeen years ago) link

ack, no, not me. i'm a boob. give d.wolk more work. or matos, for crying out loud. people who can do journalism and who don't suck.

scott seward (121212), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 05:15 (seventeen years ago) link

the modern notion of england was invented by the klf, duh

friday on the porch (lfam), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 05:18 (seventeen years ago) link

Man, I'd love to read an article -- nah, a book -- on James Brown by Matos and D. Wolk! I shall rob a bank and commission such a thing.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 05:18 (seventeen years ago) link

d00dz, nabisco always figures that if you can explain it, then there's no big deal -- that's his shtick.

sterl clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 05:19 (seventeen years ago) link

do we give klitstermaw credit for not taking the more obvious Arthur Lee/Syd pairing? As a huge Lee fan, I'm glad he didn't, but many people would claim Arthur had some mental issues too.

bill sackter (bill sackter), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 05:51 (seventeen years ago) link

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.

^^^^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.

Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:31 (seventeen years ago) link

what "k-correct" mean?

m coleman (lovebug ), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 14:58 (seventeen years ago) link

i can't believe i actually just read that whole thing

Surmounter (Awn, R), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 15:26 (seventeen years ago) link

WTF, dudes, someone thinking your complaints are overheated is not quite the same as an "embargo on discussing music criticism" -- what, is there an embargo on discussing your criticism of music criticism? (Besides which, once again, this isn't music criticism; it's one in a series of year-in-review obit pieces.) I'm not sure I'll ever understand why you guys are casting that as Saving Klosterman rather than, I dunno, thinking certain criticisms are just bunk (apparently Occam's Razor suggests I must have a hard-on for Klosterman rather than OMG just disagreeing with an ILM poster??), but if this kind of run-of-mill fluff really gets your dander up, so be it.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:55 (seventeen years ago) link

for the first time ever on ilx, nabisco, stfu.

so not otm.

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Stencil OTM

Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 17:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Hahaha for neither the first nor last time on ILX: Stencil in randomly being a giant prick shocker!

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:12 (seventeen years ago) link

cry me a river.

Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:13 (seventeen years ago) link

randomly being a prick? Nabisco, you're kind of asking for it. People disagree with you (total shocker I know) and you're not going to win any arguments or change minds at all on this thread. Let it go.

Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:17 (seventeen years ago) link

dude, we KNOW it's not music crit because it's made up entirely of opinion, conjecture, and sloppy googling. hey, wait a minute...

scott seward (121212), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:23 (seventeen years ago) link

K on college bowl games. Actually I like bowl games too, but this piece ends up being about 73% about Klosterman, and I don't really think the NCAA is going to make any decisions based on that.

Matt Cibula (Formerly, the Haikunym), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:04 (seventeen years ago) link

Ned, have you read Wolk's Live at the Apollo 33 1/3? One of the three best in the series, easy.

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 20:38 (seventeen years ago) link

(also the Nabisco pile-on is amusing if only because it just confirms everything he's saying.)

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 20:41 (seventeen years ago) link

Ned, have you read Wolk's Live at the Apollo 33 1/3? One of the three best in the series, easy.

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

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 20:52 (seventeen years ago) link

There are worse reviews. There are worse Klosterman pieces by far. But I think it would have been nice to have a slightly better nytimes obit for Barrett and/or Landy since I like reading the times occasionally.

That's all.

mh (mike h.), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 20:59 (seventeen years ago) link

So this is about his tone and not his points

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.

Name Not Found (rogermexico), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 21:31 (seventeen years ago) link

well, yeah--that's why I said his tone becomes essentially invisible to me after a while, because I know what to expect.

Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 21:39 (seventeen years ago) link

so Our Number One Most Significant Interpreter Of Popular Culture is, you're saying then, the prose equivalent of Charlie Brown's mom?

Joan Didion wept.

Name Not Found (rogermexico), Wednesday, 3 January 2007 21:50 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.