The Naked Guy obit is incredibly sad.
― Tiki Theater Xymposium (Tiki Theater Xymposium), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 08:44 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tim F (Tim F), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 09:13 (seventeen years ago) link
someone was still high on crack when he pushed the publish button.
― nathalie (stevienixed), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 09:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― they call me candle guy (kenan), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 09:35 (seventeen years ago) link
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
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:23 (seventeen years ago) link
― Jay (jaymacke), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:33 (seventeen years ago) link
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
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
― Matt Cibula (Formerly, the Haikunym), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:43 (seventeen years ago) link
― Jay (jaymacke), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:46 (seventeen years ago) link
― scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:48 (seventeen years ago) link
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
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
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
― Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 18:53 (seventeen years ago) link
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
― scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:06 (seventeen years ago) link
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
― scott seward (121212), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:27 (seventeen years ago) link
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
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
― bohren un der club of gear (bohren un der club of gear), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:30 (seventeen years ago) link
also: speeeed to roam OTM
― Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:31 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:32 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:33 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison is number one proponent of Beatle!!!Mania!!! on nu-ILX (tim ellison), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:34 (seventeen years ago) link
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
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
― Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 20:44 (seventeen years ago) link
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
― bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:35 (seventeen years ago) link
― bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:39 (seventeen years ago) link
?
― Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:43 (seventeen years ago) link
― bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:44 (seventeen years ago) link
― bohren un der club of gear (bohren un der club of gear), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:46 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:48 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:52 (seventeen years ago) link
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
are you Kathleen Wilson?
― Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:57 (seventeen years ago) link
― Tyrone Slothrop (Tyrone Slothrop), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:58 (seventeen years ago) link
― Mr. Que (Party with me Punker), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 22:58 (seventeen years ago) link
― bill sackter (bill sackter), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:01 (seventeen years ago) link
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
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
― Make a Beck Song #1 (wkwkwk), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:05 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 2 January 2007 23:12 (seventeen years ago) link
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