Scott Creney reacts to Chuck Klosterman’s article about tUnE-yArDs pretty much exactly the way you’d expect him to
Continued from previous page:
5. w h o k i l l is not avant-garde, but it is experimental. It has a cultic, chaotic, stand-alone quality that makes it worth investigating.
In his last point, Chuck starts dispensing compliments, albeit back-handed ones. Is the album good? It’s worth investigating. No, allegations of child abuse are worth inevestigating. This is a record, you listen to it. Chuck probably says he ‘experimented’ with marijuana while he was in college as well. Also, I’d like to announce a Collapse Board Contest. E-mail Scott_Creney@yahoo.com if you can tell me the difference between avant-garde and experimental. The winner gets a free spam virus.
It’s smart. But it will never be popular.
As opposed to Chuck, who is popular but will never be smart.
The takeaway from all this, I suppose, is that w h o k i l l is a creative record, made by an auteur with (at least a modicum of) irrefutable talent.
Retarded people have (at least a modicum of) irrefutable intelligence. Paedophiles have (at least a modicum of) irrefutable good qualities.
But the fact that this subjective opinion has now been validated by the only sector of the media that cares about such qualities puts the 33-year-old Garbus in a strange cultural position.
The Village Voice is the only sector of the media that cares about irrefutable talent? Or is he talking about music critics in general? Or is he talking about Chuck Klosterman articles? Also, it isn’t that strange of a cultural position. It happens every year.
It’s possible that she’s an authentic genius, and that w h o k i l l will mark the “breakthrough” beginning of a major career punctuated by intermittent moments of meaningful innovation.
It’s possible. For Chuck, every opinion must be accompanied by an equivocation. When he proposed to his wife, he probably said, ‘I think I might possibly want to spend the rest of my life with you’.
She could end up like James Murphy or Cat Power.
We should all fucking hope not.
But it’s just as possible — in fact, more possible — that this will not happen.
Oh god in heaven, no. Wait. Are you saying that if Merrill Garbus is lucky, she might one day have a career as great and innovative as FUCKING LCD SOUNDSYSTEM AND CAT POWER? Because James Murphy hasn’t had an original musical thought in his life. [Thank you! -Ed] And the only time Cat Power sounded original was when she enlisted The Dirty Three as her back-up band. I’m starting to think that for a former Senior Writer at Spin magazine, Chuck may not know that much about music.
She will probably just make a bunch more albums of varying quality, none of which will get the collective adoration of w h o k i l l. And then Garbus will end up with this bizarre 40-year-old life, where her singular claim to fame will be future people saying things like, “Hey, remember that one winter when we all thought tUnE-yArDs was supposed to be brilliant? That fucking puppeteer? Were we all high at the same time? What was wrong with us?”
And the gloves come off. Although Chuck has to say that this is only what will ‘probably’ happen. Which is a gentle, gutless way of saying this is what he thinks is actually going to happen. Which makes me think that Chuck thinks that ‘modicum’ of irrefutable genius must be pretty fucking small if he thinks THIS is the likely scenario.
By the way, guess who’s about to celebrate their 40th birthday this year? That’s right. Chuck Klosterman. Do you think it’s possible Chuck might be worried that people are sitting around saying, “Remember when we liked to read Chuck Klosterman books? Were we all high at the same time? What was wrong with us?” I think if I were Chuck’s therapist, I might want to back up a bit and examine that last paragraph a little further.
This will be her retrospective penalty for resembling a potential genius, assuming she never actually becomes one: Garbus will become the punch line for highly engaged music fans who want to make jokes about how they themselves were wrong about her.
Chuck has now exited the realm of music critic and is now dealing in curses and fortune telling.
At this point in her existence, I can’t imagine that Merrill Garbus has been able to reap much tangible benefit from her talent.
Before Whokill came out, the booking agent for Tuneyards was asking for a guarantee of $4000 per night from promoters. The day it got Best New Music in Pitchfork, that number went over $10,000. Per show. I bet she reaped a hell of a lot more “tangible benefit” from her talent in 2011 than you did, Chuck.
I’m sure she’s not rich, unless she was born that way (one of her songs was used in an episode of The Good Wife and another was in a phone commercial, but that’s hardly a gold mine). There’s nothing about her music or persona that suggests she’s enamored of the concept of fame and attention.
Well then I guess she probably doesn’t give a shit about any of this, now does she Chuck? It seems the only person who’s worried about Merrill’s fame is you. Which again, if I were Chuck’s therapist…
She is, at least within the idiom of rock, a serious artist. So the only things that matter are (a) her reputation among other serious people, and (b) how she views her own work and identity (which is, of course, partially dependent on the reaction of her audience).
No, how Merrill Garbus sees herself may not have anything to do with the reaction of her audience at all. It might, but it might not. And it’s interesting that the one time Chuck should probably qualify one of his bold statements, he goes the other way and says that ‘of course’ she does – something Chuck couldn’t possibly know anything about.
In other words, her real career starts now. For the next 15 years, she must validate other people’s belief in her own brilliance. There is no other option.
Jeff Mangum hasn’t made an album in 15 years. He has done NOTHING to validate other people’s belief in his brilliance. And yet, somehow, people still think he’s a genius.
Because if she doesn’t, those same people will view her inability to become transcendent as hilarious. They will look back at w h o k i l l and talk about it like it’s Cop Rock. And they’ll technically be making fun of themselves, but she’ll be the only person being criticized by name.
First of all, Cop Rock was awesome.
[Is this video for real? -Ed]
Second of all, I don’t get all this hand-wringing. Van Morrison never made an album as great as Astral Weeks. Arthur Lee never topped Forever Changes. People don’t sit around making fun of them all the time. Even Liz Phair, who topped the Pazz & Jop poll in 1993 with Exile In Guyville, didn’t go on to be a genius. People still think that’s a good album. De La Soul, the 1989 winners, never topped 3 Feet High And Rising, and nobody sits around cracking jokes about them all the time. I think your speculative trip into the future, where you fantasize that people are going to laugh at Tuneyards, is very strange, and not based in any sort of real world evidence.
I am rooting for you, Merrill Garbus. I like your record, and I hope you make many more. I want you to be a genius, and I have no reason to believe that won’t happen. But maybe don’t sell the puppets, because maybe you are doomed.
I don’t think he really likes her record. And I don’t think he gives a shit if she makes another album or not. And if he really has “no reason to believe” she isn’t going to become a genius (now THAT’S a fucking backhanded compliment), then why the fuck does he think she is (maybe – God, what a weak bearded pile of pus you are, Chuck Klosterman) DOOMED?
This article says very little about Merrill Garbus (it may say less than any article I’ve ever read about Tuneyards), but it says a whole hell of a lot about Chuck Klosterman. I’m not a huge fan of Tuneyards, but I think this article is a massive pile of shit. No maybes about it.
Related posts:
Song of the day – 292: tUnE-yArDs
tUnE-YaRdS – w h o k i l l (4AD)
Novel music or better off as a character in a novel about trash munching in America? You tell me.
Pen Tip Rips – 2: tUnE-yArDs
tUnE-yArDs @ The Haunt, Brighton 21.06.11
36 Responses to “Scott Creney reacts to Chuck Klosterman’s article about tUnE-yArDs pretty much exactly the way you’d expect him to”
Leave a Reply
Join Our Mailing List
Subscription Options
Recent Comments
- Erika on A new list from the NME, and some thoughts about pop-hackery
- Charley Stone on A new list from the NME, and some thoughts about pop-hackery
- Wallace Wylie on A new list from the NME, and some thoughts about pop-hackery
- buddyroe on The Wussification of Indie Rock (it’s all Pavement’s fault)
- Shirokuma on Song of the day – 458: Dexys Midnight Runners
- Crystal Walters on Why Music Critics Suck
- Chester Whelks on Sleigh Bells – Reign Of Terror (Mom & Pop)
- cirrusminor on Why Canada drives me nuts
- C. on Death Rattle – The Stone Roses, Primal Scream, Oasis and the travesty of British Alternative Rock in the 90s
- Julian on Song of the day – 459: Barbara Dane and The Chambers Brothers
- Princess Stomper on Song of the day – 458: Dexys Midnight Runners
- Princess Stomper on Song of the day – 458: Dexys Midnight Runners
Recent Posts
Popular Posts
Similar Posts
Random Posts
Collapse Board archives
Andrew McMillen
- The Global Mail story: “Sources Of Tension: SourceBottle and online sourcing”, April 2012
- The Australian book review: “Jacked: The Unauthorised Behind-the-Scenes Story of Grand Theft Auto” by David Kushner, April 2012
- The Australian story: “Jay & Silent Bob: Comic duo gets serious, for laughs”, April 2012
Completely agree and well done. An ill-conceived, insulting, awful article powered by a half-hearted attempt to give a crap.
Oh my god, the poor fucker: he doesn’t know how to think.
How awful to be in that tangled head, spending your time working out how you ought to be evaluating something. I wonder where his love went?
Awesome breakdown of klosterman’s lazy, mean-spirited article.
I always thought Chuck Klosterman had a really good scam going with his high-profile, best-selling, unpretentious, Common Joe schtick, but if this is the kinda shit he burps up as the Johnny-come-lately who missed every single mention of tUnE-yArDs both online & in print in 2011, then I don’t think there’s any further reason for him to exist outside of his cocoa puff-littered cave of towheaded culture critic irrelevance.
Btw, I’m liking Jeremy’s description up there of Klosterman as a “milquetoast hipster”. That’s my new favourite insult, that is.
Sure that reviewer was an asshole. But tuneyards is fucking awful
I don’t like Tuneyards either but that’s an awful excuse for music writing for somebody who ostensibly makes a living doing so and reportedly has some credibility. It’s the very definition of tossed off.
Fair play to the author of this article – very good rebuttal.
yes it’s a poorly written, ill-conceived piece of music journalism but not necessarily something that many of the writers on Collapse Board would shy away from themselves. Collapse Board often takes great pleasure in being nasty about bands that are held in high esteem ny other music critics. Often seemingly just for the purpose of asserting their own perceived superiority to those “other” music journalists. There seems an element of sour grapes that someone has written mean things about an artist you like and this is your chance to get back at them?
What, Gotye? Wild Flag? The Antlers? Brooo-hooo-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
The point being it’s a little pot kettle black don’t you think?
The quality of the writing may be better but there are sometimes similar motivations is perhaps more the point I am making
Chuck’s motivation is getting paid, basically. Ours is way more complex than that.
Great article, hadn’t read the Klosterman piece before but it’s buttock-clenchingly excruciating. The line about the proposal to his wife brought actual lols and joy to my lunchtime – thanks!
Neil, I don’t think there’s much of a comparison to be made between Collapse Board critics pricking the hype bubble and a well-known music writer turning in something that is so shoddy. Klosterman’s piece isn’t a hatchet job on Merill Garbus or tUnE-yArDs (he actually seems to think that maybe he might perhaps possibly even like the album, although he may then decide not to at some indeterminate point in the future); he’s not being “mean” about her, he’s just writing nonsense. He doesn’t even provide any insight into Whokill being top of the VV polls: he seems entirely baffled by the whole phenomenon of its popularity. So where’s the similarity? What was Klosterman’s motivation in writing his weirdly pointless piece? I’m damned if I know. I’m pretty sure that other Collapse Board writers see themselves as the kid in the crowd hollering that the Emperor has no clothes when they point out that Gotye isn’t all that etc.: it’s a righteous railing against mediocrity and low expectations.
Klosterman merely seems to be muddled.
So, there’s this album right, and you really think you like it now, and I’m not saying I don’t or won’t (but I don’t and I won’t, probably)… well I think that one day you’re not going to like it as much as you do now. What do you think of THAT huh? Chew on that shit for a while and see how it tastes. *Points* “You’re going to like this album less, you’re going to like this album less”.
@Neil: Klosterman is writing about how unengaged he is in the process of listening to new music- aloofness taken to its most self-important and irrelevant extreme. On CB, every writer is entangled in the music. You might think that because the writers differ in opinion with some of the bloggeratti, it’s just to be contrarian, but they weigh in with an actual opinion. Klosterman is just dealing in backhanded compliments, wikipedia regurgitation and chickenshit “insight”. I have no indication as a reader that he has yet listened the Tuneyards album. When people are hating on music critics, it’s because of the imbeciles like Klosterman. His writing only satisfies a word count.
Your right in that Klosterman’s piece is shockingly written and essentially pointless. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that, or perhaps the question I was asking, is would the same piece (CB piece) have been written if the Klosterman piece was about a different artist?
I do however disagree that CB writers are not trying to be contrarian. I would argue there is a distinct streak of wilful contrarianism that runs through a lot of the writing on CB. That is not to say it is not fuelled by genuine passion and engagement but it is there nonetheless.
Yes, I’m all for contrariness! As I’m sure Everett wrote on here not that long ago, it makes for a much more engaged debate if you take the position that The Beatles were shit: you fling open the door to all kinds of counter-intuitive marvels that way. Shakes things up and makes you think harder, better, closer.
I can’t see how the artist that Klosterman wrote about is that relevant to the fact his piece was disengaged and pointless; there’s no canon on here. In fact, that it happens to be tUnE-yArDs illustrates the point perfectly: there’ve now been several different pieces/reviews written on here about the band with no party-line between them at all; just check out the “similar posts” to the right there —>
Going back to Scott’s piece, it’s absolutely fucking NUTS that Klosterman reads Garbus as asexual because she doesn’t appear to him as conventionally feminine – despite the obviously sexually charged nature of the whole album.
Poor blinkered ears, poor blinkered mind.
I’d hope nothing that stoopidly misogynist would get published on here.
Fair enough. I absolutely agree about the ridiculousness of the asexual comments and the thinly veiled misogyny of the piece. Interestingly though you seem to find her appearance an equally important signifier in your review of her Brighton gig? Not trying to pick a fight just asking some questions.
@ Neil – of COURSE her appearance is a signifier. She has a moustache for god’s sake! Women do and Merrill has a lovely one – not a thick bristly man moustache, but a fine and delicate lady line of hair above the lip; the kind women spend too many hours trying to get rid of even though it’s perfectly natural and feminine. It’s a totally inspiring aesthetic and absolutely worth shouting about.
As Lucy said, the issue with Klosterman’s appraisal of Merrill’s appearance is not that he makes mention of it but that he equates her ‘unconventional’ femininity with being asexual. It’s lad mag thinking and deeply insulting.
Chuck would have saved everyone a lot of time if he’d just written,”I don’t have a clue about pop music
anymore” and had them print it in 500 point sans serif.
I’m a big Chuck Klosterman fan, and I found this piece to be in the least lazy, and at the most offensive, but it is also not a critique of the artist so much as it is a critique of indie criticism — it’s right there in the title of the piece.
Why he didn’t put more thought into this, I do not know. But it is an interesting proposition to say to writer: write about a critically revered artist you know nothing about, from listening to the album once and gleaning what knowledge you can from some cursory reading — which is the way a lot of “critical” music writing you read on the internet is written.
But to call Klosterman a misogynist is to misuse the word and incorrectly label him as a man who hates women. The piece is however, sexist in parts, which is why it’s so disappointing.
I agree. I’ve been experimenting with this approach a lot over the last year – e.g. The Horrors, Radiohead, Cults etc etc etc. Plus, I critique a whole LOAD of indie music criticism.
You don’t get anyone going around claiming to be a big fan of my writing, though. Maybe I should be more deliberately offensive towards female performers? That seems to be how you get respect among the indie rock community.
P.S. I have no idea who Chuck Klosterman is, having never encountered him before this. Was he ever any good? An ex-Spin journalist, right? Sorry, I would’ve blanked him back in the day if that was the case, as I’ve always viewed Spin as a tepid version of the UK music press.
I’m glad to hear that they had the occasional semi-decent writer, if he was such a beast.
A lot of people hate Klosterman because he is pretty famous — in the way that as a critic is known as a part of culture. But like any writer, if you aren’t into what he covers, then it’s easy to not know his stuff. I particularly like Fargo Rock City, Killing Yourself to Live and Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs as places to start. He’s got eight books out and was a critic as Spin, obvs, as well as Esquire. Some of his good stuff is here: http://byliner.com/chuck-klosterman
“But to call Klosterman a misogynist is to misuse the word and incorrectly label him as a man who hates women. The piece is however, sexist in parts, which is why it’s so disappointing.”
Actually, I didn’t say Klosterman was a misogynist, I said that eradicating a woman’s sexuality (calling her asexual) because she doesn’t conform to standard notions of femininity was a misogynist thing to do. I stand by that. Because it’s a crass and offensive (rather than merely “disappointing”) thing to do.
A bit of a belated response here (the usual, family, work, family passing the stomach flu to each other like a joint in a high school parking lot), but not to worry, it’s sure to be one of the longest!
I will out myself as a Klosterman fan, but I have to admit, this is far from his finest moment. Whatever point he was trying to make either failed to make it out of the editing process or, more likely, failed to make it into the piece itself.
It’s one of the most definitely non-committal pieces I’ve ever read, from any writer, but I think a lot of the grey-shaded wording stems from the subject matter: a female. The piece itself has an undesirable tinge of sexism to it, but if Klosterman removes all the “maybes,” “perhaps,” and anything else that renders the discussion (I should really put that in quotes…) more concrete, he risks coming off as a misogynist. It’s not much of a choice, but given that he wrote himself into this corner, it’s better (and easier) to take the slightly higher road.
He pulled no such punches when dealing with the guys. His takedown of Loutallica’s album (also over at Grantland) left the reader with the clear impression that it was terrible, verging on unlistenable, and as grandly masturbatorial as any sort of artwork whipped up by rich people amusing each other. (Of course, he half-heartedly tried to lay the blame at the feet of piracy, which is an entire discussion of its own…) Not a lot of waffling and a much stronger piece. Of course, the subjects were MEN and could presumably TAKE IT. That presumption ties in with this presumption: that WOMEN can’t. Hence the badly-worn kid gloves (made out of deflective teflon).
A fair presumption on his thought process? Probably not. But there it is.
Regardless, there’s no way he “wins” with this one. The only way to win is not to play. Chuck amassed a few disjointed thoughts about tune-yards (if you don’t mind, I won’t be skipping all over my keyboard like a script kiddie) and, for better or worse, has an outlet for them. Scott’s rebuttal is what this kind of self-centered wandering needed.
Now, if I can offer a bit more presumption (and let’s face it, we’re all pretty much powerless to stop me, including me): here’s what I gather his point might have been before he undid it in so many ways.
There are great albums, universally heralded, that become the CD that stays in the box in closet for the next indefinite period of time. They were amazing at the time, but as time and distance take their toll, it becomes harder and harder to identify with whoever you were or whatever you were feeling at the time that you listened to it on repeat for x number of weeks/months.
Part of this is burning yourself out on the music. Another part of this is the surrounding acclaim. Everyone loves year-end Best Of lists, if for no other reason than feeling vindicated by seeing something you like near the top of the list. Once that falls away, it’s pretty natural to find the object of your affection looking a little duller with each passing day.
Here’s a couple of personal experiences as examples. Back in the early 90s, everyone was playing the hell out of the Spin Doctors (as was I). It was the soundtrack to an entire summer spent with my uncle, playing the hell out of that album and the Sega (simultaneously) while we were supposed to be out looking for work. (How’s that for shameful back-to-back statements. [Lay off. I was all of 18.]) By the time the year ended, just the opening riff of any of their 3 (or so) hits was enough to make me vomit into the stereo and hurl the works into the street.
A few years down the road and everyone is playing the hell out of (and praising the hell out of) Kula Shaker. (As was I! Often from a DJ booth!) Of course, this was before the whole lead-singer-is-actually-a-racist-fuckhead falling out and back when it was still a pretty cool mixture of restrained psychedelia and post-baggy-beats. Six months down the road and the dew was off the petal (or whatever) and to this day the CD has never made its way back out of storage (if I even still have it).
These things happen. Amazing stuff (not that these two are in tune-yards’ league in any way) becomes annoying stuff, through no fault of the artist(s) involved. That’s my take through the badly-worded haze. That doesn’t excuse this piece’s existence, but that’s what I managed to pull out of it (with some extrapolation).
[Side note: I deeply fear the Kasabian will be my next Kula Shaker. God, I hope not. But I fear it all the same. Kasabian does have more than one good album, though. That helps pace the burnout.]
[Also: Beastie Boys - Hello Nasty. Same thing as the above two examples. It's enough to make a sworn electro acolyte swear off vocoder altogether.]
As for tune-yards, they don’t do it for me. I really wish they did. I read Princess Stomper’s post on the Age of Clank while at work and could not wait to get home and hear this new genre. I’m an industrial fan and her descriptions led me to believe this would be right up my alley. I was dismayed to find it wasn’t and watched video after video hoping I’d stumble across the one that sounded like I thought it would sound when all I could do was imagine the clamorous din that awaited me. Come on! Einsturzende Neubauten! Test Dept.! Banging on shit! Plus more! I really really really wanted it to be, but alas and all, it wasn’t.
So that’s my take. tune-yards for a lot of thee, but not for me. Nothing personal. Just not what I thought I was looking for.
[Oh, and a quick "thanks" to ET for posting a link to my blog on his Facebook page, especially considering I referred to him as a "semi-legend" running a "hobby blog." Too cool by far. {I totally meant the "mock disparagingly" I threw into that sentence.}]
Chuck Klosterman resembles one of those boring looking dudes whose faces end up as a Guess Who? board game flip tile.
In The Age today: “I do wonder what Zooey Deschanel will do 10 years from now, when she’s no longer the cutest button in the basket.”
I find this concern with the future of some women a little strange.
plus, it sucks to equate “somewhat androgynous” with “asexual”.
I’m somewhat androgynous & decidedly sexy!
[...] occasioned plenty of excellent writing that also actually tells you something about the band. Scott Creney, among many excellent points, notes Klosterman’s sexism (“At the top of Chuck’s list [...]
Never encountered Klosterman before (I work in a Berkeley music store and get most of my input on music from fellow employees and selected friends and customers), but this whole damn article reads like a thinly veiled cry for help… Chuck’s burned out on his job and wants to retire, but doesn’t want to be disconnected from that good old music/tickets/promotional doo-dads pipeline.
I predict, if it hasn’t happened already, that Chuck will develop an acute reluctance to come out with a strong opinion of any new artist. What if he puts his rep on the line for some future sad-sack punchline band like Consolidated, Mad Season or Green Jelly? Too risky. Best to churn out “think pieces” like the journalistic slobber above, which manages to be smug, oblivious and wishy-washy all at once. Nicely played, Chuck.
I like Klosterman because I’m an angry, out of touch rockist.
“and I’m assuming the Robert Plant bit is not meant to be a compliment.”
Huh? why the fuck isn’t it?
re the therapist bit of scott’s rebuttal, it’s a common problem in music writing/criticism, the writer putting themselves into or in the way of the music. meaningless toss, basically. the brigette adair herron review was at least honest, upfront.
[...] Creney at Australian music blog Collapse Board rightly took Klosterman’s post to task, mocking the general half-assedness of the attack while also pointing out a grim undercurrent of [...]