Yeah the whole computer infrastructure at my office is admittedly obsolete, but Grantland is no longer viewable anymore. Everything is stretched out and pixelated and just a huge mess.NatetheGreat said:
Grantland
- Thread starter Leather
- Start date
BS_SoxFan said:
Same problems here, but I work for a software company and our infrastructure is pretty good. Seriously, did Grantland get hacked or something--that is some minor league looking stuff.
My infrastructure is pretty good(24 inch monitor) and I had a seizure opening the page. It's a total mess. It reminds me of ESPN's page, where it is just a ton of crap without any clarity or rhythm.
On Mac/Chrome I haven't seen any rendering issues. I like the new homepage better than the old POS, it's way easier to access 2-3 days of content. No more going directly to "In case you missed it". Each individual headline needs to stand out a bit more, it does get too ESPNy in the middle, and the aesthetic is as mis-matched to their tone as the name turned out to be. The sidebar is too wide and the main picture is too big so "The Latest" is pushed too far down the page (need to be able to get a glimpse w/o scrolling). I guess it's not so hot, really, but it's still better.
He was reporting. There was a story, he was doing due diligence in researching the facts and contacting the primary source for confirmation.
I think Barnwell's crappiness is thrown into much sharper relief by the presence of Zach Lowe on the same site, who regularly cranks out columns that are genuinely really smart--well-written, well-researched, insightful, and neither enamored with conventional wisdom nor fetishizing counterintuitiveness for its own sake. You read a Lowe column and whether you're a guy who watches NBA constantly or someone who barely pays attention to it, you'll find it be engaging and informative and very convincing. Jona Keri isn't quite the gold standard for his profession that Lowe is, but he's very readable and very smart and doesn't overreach constantly, which usually means his columns are worth a read. Meanwhile Barnwell just makes you feel like you're wasting your time.
NatetheGreat said:
His Bronco/Patriots preview is more of the same. Everything about Denver is a strength. Everything about New England is a weakness.
He jokes about how the Patriots couldn't stop the Denver running attack, never once noting that Manning was shut down to only 150 yards passing in a game that was 5 quarters long. The Pats took away the best aspect of Denver's offense, the passing attack, in lieu of the running game. And Barnwell writes it like it was all planned by Denver that Manning would have one of the worst statistical games of the season, manning(heh!) an offense that only scored 7 points in the final 3 quarters of the game.
Jonah Keri ain't the gold standard of baseball writers - I'm guessing we're awarding that title to Posnanski? - but he's in the top five, probably the top three. Rany Jayazerali is really good too.
Barnwell just stinks. He didn't used to be this bad, but I don't know what's happening to him. I am constantly underwhelmed by his insight; I don't get any more out of the Mays/Barnwell podcasts than I do out of Pod Vader on Football Today. That's a podcast that took a step up in quality.
Barnwell just stinks. He didn't used to be this bad, but I don't know what's happening to him. I am constantly underwhelmed by his insight; I don't get any more out of the Mays/Barnwell podcasts than I do out of Pod Vader on Football Today. That's a podcast that took a step up in quality.
This made me chuckle a few times. Roger Goodell's inbox:
EDIT: Just noticed some profanity in this that would make it NSFW. But here is a link to it: http://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/halpern_goodell_inbox_final.jpg
EDIT: Just noticed some profanity in this that would make it NSFW. But here is a link to it: http://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/halpern_goodell_inbox_final.jpg
http://grantland.com/features/peyton-manning-denver-broncos-offense/
I thought this article on how Peyton has developed in terms of running the offense in Denver was much, much better than the sort of crap Barnwell churns out regularly. I realize "Manning is smart and runs a deceptively simple no offense that employs the no huddle and lots of audibles" is not exactly a new angle, but the article digs in past the surface to explain some crucial differences between the Denver offense and the old Indy offense, and it does so with clear language and good use of video. There's no silly overreaching or pointless counterintuitiveness for its own sake as with Barnwell, nor is it as pointless and banal as most of Mays' stuff. I'd like to see Grantland shift more of its football coverage to stuff in this vein.
I thought this article on how Peyton has developed in terms of running the offense in Denver was much, much better than the sort of crap Barnwell churns out regularly. I realize "Manning is smart and runs a deceptively simple no offense that employs the no huddle and lots of audibles" is not exactly a new angle, but the article digs in past the surface to explain some crucial differences between the Denver offense and the old Indy offense, and it does so with clear language and good use of video. There's no silly overreaching or pointless counterintuitiveness for its own sake as with Barnwell, nor is it as pointless and banal as most of Mays' stuff. I'd like to see Grantland shift more of its football coverage to stuff in this vein.
Funny how close Andrew Sharp's "hot take" on Richard Sherman was to a Denver Post piece that came out a week later.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/hotsportstakes-should-richard-sherman-be-playing-in-the-super-bowl/
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_25005938/kiszla-broncos-manning-can-teach-seahawks-sherman-lot
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/hotsportstakes-should-richard-sherman-be-playing-in-the-super-bowl/
http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_25005938/kiszla-broncos-manning-can-teach-seahawks-sherman-lot
NatetheGreat said:
Chris Brown's longer pieces are terrific. IMO he's a pompous ass on twitter but he does kind of back it up with great work like this.
To be fair it takes a ton of time and effort to write a piece like this: it's just not realistic to think anyone could create Brown level work with Barnwell level frequency.
http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/two-headed-boys-falling-in-and-out-of-love-with-neutral-milk-hotel/
This article kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I felt like the journalist sort of fell into the classic Bill Simmons / Narcissitic trap of: If something isn't relavant to me, even if it is relevant to other people, then by definition said thing cannot be relevant.
Maybe this is a defensive reading of the article because I adore Neutral Milk Hotel and the Aeroplane Over the Sea record, but I read Hyden's article as:
1) Hyden enjoyed NMH when they debuted in the 90's
2) Hyden goes to a Jeff Mangum show in 2011 and is surrounded by a crowd that is way more into the show than he is
3) Therefore, Hyden decides that NMH is no longer relevant and doesn't get why people are still that into them
4) Almost as an aside, Hyden then wonders why people still go to see the Pixies
Now obviously his point of view is more nuanced than that, and Hyden talks about how both he and Mangum aren't in the same places in their lives as they were in the 90's. Well, duh. I'm not sure if Hyden is aware of how nostalgia works (particularly in the music business), or maybe he just needs the world to know that he's just too advanced for nostalgic feelings. What I do know is that NMH sells out their shows in a heartbeat and they will continue to sell them out for as long as they want to play...because a) they put out some genuinely amazing stuff, and b) people enjoy connecting back to that particular time in their lives when they first fell in love with that album. Is it really that hard to understand? Has he never seen an episode of Mad Men?
As for my aside to his aside, I just saw the Pixies play last week and it was easily one of the two or three best shows I've ever seen. And like his Mangum concert experience, the crowd was simply amazing. The atmosphere was electric from start to finish and the crowd basically willed the Pixies to make three separate encore appearances. Mr. Hyden, people still go to Pixies shows because the Pixies are still really damn good at playing a bunch of really damn good songs.
I should also point out that going to these 90's alt 'nostalgia' shows is a pretty delightful concert experience. It's kind of like being in a Portlandia skit where you're surrounded by concert goers who all resemble Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein characters. Polite, well mannered aging hipsters and the cute girls wear glasses. It's fantastic!
This article kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I felt like the journalist sort of fell into the classic Bill Simmons / Narcissitic trap of: If something isn't relavant to me, even if it is relevant to other people, then by definition said thing cannot be relevant.
Maybe this is a defensive reading of the article because I adore Neutral Milk Hotel and the Aeroplane Over the Sea record, but I read Hyden's article as:
1) Hyden enjoyed NMH when they debuted in the 90's
2) Hyden goes to a Jeff Mangum show in 2011 and is surrounded by a crowd that is way more into the show than he is
3) Therefore, Hyden decides that NMH is no longer relevant and doesn't get why people are still that into them
4) Almost as an aside, Hyden then wonders why people still go to see the Pixies
Now obviously his point of view is more nuanced than that, and Hyden talks about how both he and Mangum aren't in the same places in their lives as they were in the 90's. Well, duh. I'm not sure if Hyden is aware of how nostalgia works (particularly in the music business), or maybe he just needs the world to know that he's just too advanced for nostalgic feelings. What I do know is that NMH sells out their shows in a heartbeat and they will continue to sell them out for as long as they want to play...because a) they put out some genuinely amazing stuff, and b) people enjoy connecting back to that particular time in their lives when they first fell in love with that album. Is it really that hard to understand? Has he never seen an episode of Mad Men?
As for my aside to his aside, I just saw the Pixies play last week and it was easily one of the two or three best shows I've ever seen. And like his Mangum concert experience, the crowd was simply amazing. The atmosphere was electric from start to finish and the crowd basically willed the Pixies to make three separate encore appearances. Mr. Hyden, people still go to Pixies shows because the Pixies are still really damn good at playing a bunch of really damn good songs.
I should also point out that going to these 90's alt 'nostalgia' shows is a pretty delightful concert experience. It's kind of like being in a Portlandia skit where you're surrounded by concert goers who all resemble Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein characters. Polite, well mannered aging hipsters and the cute girls wear glasses. It's fantastic!
Steve Hyden is the sort of music critic who reinforces why people hate people who are into music.
I saw NMH a few months ago and they were great; the audience was a strange mix of people like me who listened to NMH when they were around, ie old people, and 18 year olds trying to get into them. While it would have been very easy to criticise the kids there for only knowing Holland1945 etc, its not their fault they were like 7 years old when the band came out.
I saw NMH a few months ago and they were great; the audience was a strange mix of people like me who listened to NMH when they were around, ie old people, and 18 year olds trying to get into them. While it would have been very easy to criticise the kids there for only knowing Holland1945 etc, its not their fault they were like 7 years old when the band came out.
I was just talking with one of my 19-or-so-year-old students the other day about NMH; she loves them, and couldn't believe me when I mentioned that I was trying to sell some of their old 7"s. (I write this as someone who tried to get, but never could get, NMH, though I liked a few other bands from the whole Elephant 6 scene okay back in the mid- and late '90s.) I don't read (and never have read) Simmons enough to know the rhetorical move you describe, Jeffe, but to me the piece has an interesting-but-underdeveloped thesis that's way more intriguing than his take on nostalgia and moving on: that is, why did NMH (or why does music, in a more general sense) get revaluated culturally as well as revaluated personally? I'm less interested in Hyden's own stake in NMH unless he can link that idea to some more thoughtful reasons about why Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Magnet, etc., reappraised Aeroplane so highly. What forces turned that initial "mixed critical reception into a chorus of platitudes"? There were plenty of touchstone albums that came out "just before the Internet changed how people heard and processed this kind of music forever" -- so what makes NMH's record different?
am_dial said:
These questions are WAY more interesting to me than anything Hyden put forth. Why is NMH culturally revered moreso than say Beulah or Apples in Stereo (just to pick a couple of Elephant 6 bands that I also particularly enjoy)? Why did their music get reevaluated? My guess is that there are a couple of factors in play. 1) By putting out such a small swath of music, they never ran into the sort of inevitable problems that plague so many bands who have put out a larger body of work (evolving too far from their original sound, not evolving enough from their original sound, putting out uninspiring albums.) We have two EPs and two studio albums with which to judge NMH, which is a fairly small sample size. Imagine if Tim Tebow decided after graduating UF that he was done with football and moved to some third world country to do missionary work and wasn't heard from again? I imagine the Legend of Tim Tebow would be very, very different than it is now (since he never experienced football failure.) I suspect we'd probably be more inclined to overlook his college football warts and appreciate his collegiate greatness more. 1A) You have this enigmatic figure in Jeff Mangum which probably helps shape people's perceptions of his music. Don't we love a 'tortured artist' more than just 'an artist?' Doesn't it give more power to their music in retrospect? Would we love Van Gogh as much if he were just a well adjusted post-Impressionist painter? James Dean, River Phoenix, Jim Morrison...didn't they gain mystique from dying young? Jeff Mangum's music career sort of died young, and then suddenly he was back. It makes for an interesting narraitve. 2) I also imagine that there is some Malcolm Gladwell / The Tipping Point stuff going on as well. Why does Band A make it but Band B doesn't even though they seem to roughly have the same level of talent? The select few right people liked Band A more, and in turn, enough of the rest of the public followed their lead.
All excellent points. Let me add too some of your and offer some additional thoughts.
1. Jeff Mangum was masterful, whether on purpose or not, at manipulating people's perception of him (in other words, his brand). It sounds easy to remain withholding, mysterious and still know the right time to strike and take advantage of the goodwill and intrigue built up --- but it's not easy because it's not natural and people get the timing wrong.
2. Their hit record had a hit song on it. More than one of course, but I am going to talk about one song and one song only. In the aeroplane over the sea. That song is one of the primary reasons for all of this. It's a great song, obviously. But lots of other great songs didn't spark. Well, the lyrics are about the scariest thing imaginable but make it feel comforting. That's a wonderful feeling to pull off. The Flaming Lips did that with Do You Realize? though so it's not like it's the first time. Of course not. The song is also terribly catchy. Either way, the song is a huge part of what's what now. How do you replicate that or predict it? Christ knows.
3. Merge records was one year old when they released this album. The album received mixed reviews. The label was unknown and from a small North Carolina town. In between 1998 and 2004, Merge records became a major tastemaker, extremely well-received and respected. And right then, right at that moment when Merge records won a grammy for best Album? They re-released In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. It was the sixth highest selling record that year and every publication re-wrote their reviews from 1998. The band hadn't changed, the songs hadn't changed, but the perception of the label putting it all out had, and there was a timeless catchy track on there with uplifting vocals in troubled times and a singer that gave it all away and was mysterious.
Nice recipe, hard to re-create obviously.
1. Jeff Mangum was masterful, whether on purpose or not, at manipulating people's perception of him (in other words, his brand). It sounds easy to remain withholding, mysterious and still know the right time to strike and take advantage of the goodwill and intrigue built up --- but it's not easy because it's not natural and people get the timing wrong.
2. Their hit record had a hit song on it. More than one of course, but I am going to talk about one song and one song only. In the aeroplane over the sea. That song is one of the primary reasons for all of this. It's a great song, obviously. But lots of other great songs didn't spark. Well, the lyrics are about the scariest thing imaginable but make it feel comforting. That's a wonderful feeling to pull off. The Flaming Lips did that with Do You Realize? though so it's not like it's the first time. Of course not. The song is also terribly catchy. Either way, the song is a huge part of what's what now. How do you replicate that or predict it? Christ knows.
3. Merge records was one year old when they released this album. The album received mixed reviews. The label was unknown and from a small North Carolina town. In between 1998 and 2004, Merge records became a major tastemaker, extremely well-received and respected. And right then, right at that moment when Merge records won a grammy for best Album? They re-released In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. It was the sixth highest selling record that year and every publication re-wrote their reviews from 1998. The band hadn't changed, the songs hadn't changed, but the perception of the label putting it all out had, and there was a timeless catchy track on there with uplifting vocals in troubled times and a singer that gave it all away and was mysterious.
Nice recipe, hard to re-create obviously.
It was the sixth highest selling vinyl, which is not that surprising when you consider who still buys vinyl and what even gets released on vinyl nowadays and the fact that "indie" music in general crossed over in those ensuing 10 years. I think this is a lot simpler than you guys are making it seem. Pitchfork did their second version of their 90s list in 2003, the album was third behind Loveless and OK Computer. Kids in their 20s and younger right now, my generation, grew up reading Pitchfork. They pretty much set the narrative on this band and any other publication (Rolling Stone, lol, might as well talk about MTV's relevance to music) "reappraising" them was basically just following their lead. It's no surprise that kids who were at this show the author was referencing that are super excited about NMH. I don't think Mangum's reputation or the idea that there is a "hit" song on that album (I mean, what?) has much to do with it.
ForKeeps said:
I don't think it is that simple, to be honest. Aeroplane jumped about 80 spots from Pitchfork's original 'Top 100 Albums of the 90's' list all the way into the top five of their revised list. That's one hell of a jump. It's a worthwhile discussion to talk about why an album that's already been out for five years would make such a meteoric rise from the first version to the 2nd version. For example, Pitchfork changed their initial review of the album from an 8.7 up to a 10 much later. You can't pretend like Pitchfork was the leader in presenting Aeroplane as some sort of seminal album...both when it debuted and even a few of years later when they put out their original Top 100 of 90's list.
While I have no doubt that Pitchfork has been instrumental in getting a younger generation excited about an earlier era's music, that isn't the totality of the discussion we're having. What made Pitchfork reappraise their own review and rankings?
EL Jeffe said:
I think this is certainly a major factor -- the fact that they made two albums that generated a lot of buzz and then just fell off the face of the earth. It obviously left people wanting more, eliminated the risk / likelihood that they would have put out some duds had they kept making new albums, and built up some kind of mythology around the band (esp. Mangum) that just made them seem more important than the other Elephant 6 bands.
That said -- and although I've listened to a buttload of indie rock in my day, I've never played an instrument in my life, and I don't know crap about the technical aspects of music, so this is largely coming from a place of ignorance -- the actual music does seem to be a factor here, too. It always sounded to my ear like NMH was more musically interesting than its E6 counterparts. Like, there seemed to be a wider variety of instrumentation and time changes and just more layers of crazy shit going on in many of their songs, and it all worked and kind of came together in this unique, beautiful, shambolic way. I mean, I really like Beulah, but their stuff sounds way less complex than NMH (to me) -- just kind of really good, catchy, but straightforward pop songs. It always felt like NMH was doing something much more difficult and much more interesting and making it work really well.
I'd say the same applies for the other Elephant 6 bands as well. (Beulah is my second favorite, and I like Elf Power and Olivia Tremor Control well enough, too, but they seem to fall well short of NMH on the same fronts in my uninformed opinion.) Don't know about Apples in Stereo, though, because the few songs I've listened to from them didn't really do it for me, so I haven't been motivated to listen to much of their output.
Interesting points all around -- though maybe this discussion should get moved to Omar Is Dead? -- but one small correction: Merge had been around for a while (1989, same as Superchunk) before Aeroplane came out.
I think there's also an aspect of, as indie rock became more of genre descriptor than a production/distribution descriptor, a need for some sort of canon. The early 2000s is right about the time that stuff really started to crystallize, and Pitchfork was probably both cause and effect of that, as was the Internet, the resurgence of vinyl, etc. etc. This need for a canon I think became even more exaggerated with the list culture of the Internet.
So partly I think it was that NMH were a legitimately great band who released a couple of great albums, and partly it was that they were right place/right time/right type of music.
So partly I think it was that NMH were a legitimately great band who released a couple of great albums, and partly it was that they were right place/right time/right type of music.
One thing that NMH had going for it over the other members of E6 is that while the majority of the E6 Collective was built around a retro-60s psych/power pop sound, NMH was kind of doing a more modern thing, or at least one similar to where part of the industry ended up going. I wouldn't necessarily say they were more inventive or artistically impressive than the other members of the collective; I mean, Apples in Stereo is a pretty versatile band that isn't afraid to do some kinda strange, experimental things (*) but NMH's style was a more modern take in comparison to most of the E6 bands where you could pretty read the influences and tone they were trying to recreate. I don't think it's a huge shock that arguably the 3rd most well known band (after NMH and AiS) to emerge from E6, of Montreal, really got its big break when it shifted away from its original psych pop influences towards a more modern, electronic sound (*one could argue the same thing about Apples in Stereo, given their resurgence was fueled by New Magnetic Wonder which seems to be a pretty conscious move towards a more modern experimental rather than the psych/power pop sound of their earlier albums).
In comparison, if you look at bands like the Apples in Stereo, The Essex Green, The Ladybug Transistor, Beulah, etc, you can pretty easily read the 1960s influences and tone they were aiming for...and that's just not where the industry is nowadays, where it was 10 to 15 years ago, or where it looks to be going anytime soon. Hell, outside of The New Pornographers, how many bands in the last 10, maybe even 15, years have had any kind of mainstream success featuring a primarily power pop sound? And they didn't exactly come out of nowhere...a project with the indie star power and name recognition of Dan Bejar, AC Newman, Neko Case, et al, is going to get a lot more exposure than your average bear. At the end of the day, I'd rather listen to The Long Goodbye, The Albermarle Sound, Tone Soul Evolution, or even Yoko, before I'd ever put The Aeroplane Over The Sea on, but at the same time, I could see why a music industry exec would single it out.
A couple songs, just because:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRsXlH9aDQ&feature=kp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqf3Kn_HzjA
In comparison, if you look at bands like the Apples in Stereo, The Essex Green, The Ladybug Transistor, Beulah, etc, you can pretty easily read the 1960s influences and tone they were aiming for...and that's just not where the industry is nowadays, where it was 10 to 15 years ago, or where it looks to be going anytime soon. Hell, outside of The New Pornographers, how many bands in the last 10, maybe even 15, years have had any kind of mainstream success featuring a primarily power pop sound? And they didn't exactly come out of nowhere...a project with the indie star power and name recognition of Dan Bejar, AC Newman, Neko Case, et al, is going to get a lot more exposure than your average bear. At the end of the day, I'd rather listen to The Long Goodbye, The Albermarle Sound, Tone Soul Evolution, or even Yoko, before I'd ever put The Aeroplane Over The Sea on, but at the same time, I could see why a music industry exec would single it out.
A couple songs, just because:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRsXlH9aDQ&feature=kp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqf3Kn_HzjA
EL Jeffe said:
Yeah I'm not saying they were hailing it as an instant classic, they obviously weren't. The first list was in 1999, so it was only a year plus after this album was released. Obviously that doesn't account for it being left off completely, but I don't think it's rise in their estimation amounts to much more than group-think amongst their staff, which also had turnover in the 3 or 4 years after.
The new redesign is just an absolute travesty. It is such a mess. I have no idea who decided to "fix" the website by making it worse. It is not easy to navigate.
I removed the bookmark and stopped making it part of my internet routine. If a great story comes up, I will see it on longform or here but I will not see the day to day blogs. People think design isnt important, it can be everything.
The new design looks great on my home laptop but horrible on my work laptop...I assume it's just a case of having a great idea but not following through and ensuring it works correctly on all platforms.
SydneySox said:
Okay. Didn't think so.
Next topic: what did you have for breakfast this morning? You first, Jack Germond-ooooooooh.
I wouldn't call Hyden bad, but everything he writes is either directly or tangentially about himself, a tendency that almost all of the current and former AV Club writers share.
I disagree on former - The Dissolve is fantastic. but the av club sucks now, that is for sure.
I haven't been keeping up with the Dissolve; it's possible they're reigning themselves in better on the new site since it's more directly film-focused. (And, in fairness, a lot of Murray's/Rabin's/Hyden's/et al AV Club stuff was personal by design.)
http://grantland.com/features/bridging-the-analytics-gap/
This Barnwell piece in which he says the most important thing for stat guys going forward will be to do a better job of explaining the value of their idieas struck me as extremely ironic, given how lousy and reductive he is at precisely this, despite it being literally his job.
This Barnwell piece in which he says the most important thing for stat guys going forward will be to do a better job of explaining the value of their idieas struck me as extremely ironic, given how lousy and reductive he is at precisely this, despite it being literally his job.
This story about Carleton U. basketball team in Ottawa (and Canadian basketball in general) is fascinating.
http://grantland.com/features/carleton-university-basketball-canada-syracuse-tyler-ennis-kansas-andrew-wiggins/
http://grantland.com/features/carleton-university-basketball-canada-syracuse-tyler-ennis-kansas-andrew-wiggins/
I really enjoyed today's column on the 2013/2014 Red Sox by Charlie Pierce. At first I felt like I was reading a more mature and introspective version of the article that I had hoped Bill Simmons would write about this team. Then I realized the central thesis, that the Sox are a now a normal team that can excel without any historical baggage or peripheral nonsense and just win for the sake of being better than the other team, is one that Simmons has never quite come to terms with and been comfortable espousing. I particularly enjoyed the paragraph quoted below in a 'season in a nutshell' sort of way. Overall I think the article did a great job of putting into words the warm fuzzy feeling we have about this team, where it's been, and where it's going.
http://grantland.com/features/no-nonsense/
http://grantland.com/features/no-nonsense/
Bless him. And Peter Gammons, who made this essential point immediately after the 2004 World Series -- it freed us to be normal for the first time in generations. Just like Cardinal fans, Peter noted.Stevie1der said:
Unfortunately, the sub primates who man the radio microphones and own the bylines are very heavily invested in the navel gazing in Boston. But eventually they will be rooted out.
I'm not a huge Klosterman fan, but I really enjoyed his Definitive, One-Size-Fits-All, Accept No-Substitutes, Massively Comprehensive Guide to the Life and Times of Kiss.
It's clearly someone writing about something he knows an awful lot about; so it's the basically the anti "Action Hero Championship Belt" Simmons column from a few weeks ago.
It's clearly someone writing about something he knows an awful lot about; so it's the basically the anti "Action Hero Championship Belt" Simmons column from a few weeks ago.
Klosterman assumes the mantle of obsessed fan on things he is, or once was, actually obsessed with. Where my interests and his overlap, I've found that he is remarkably knowledgeable. He also clearly fills in gaps in his knowledge by doing research, and he will frequently point out when he discovers something surprising, or something he learned recently that contradicts what he previously believed. It's what makes his missives enjoyable as opposed to insufferable; he is taking the reader along for the ride, not telling him/her what to think.
drleather2001 said:
Indeed, one frequently has the impression with Klosterman that he himself doesn't know what he believes. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most columnists and essayists err on the side of excessive certitude, so its refreshing when someone so willingly acknowledges the flaws and contradictions in their own theories.
Slight bump since the Simmons thread is closed, but my (and Bill's) buddy JBug somehow was able to shape up and finish an entire marathon. One too many times I had ended up at Tasty Burger at 1:30am on a weeknight with him, and he didn't quite have the metabolism that I have, to say the least. Out of nowhere he got into incredible (for a 41 year old who had breached 300 pounds) shape, and after last year, he decided he would run this year's marathon (and I don't know if he had even run 5 miles consecutively at that point). Anyhow, to those still feeling charitable post-Marathon, he's still raising money for the American Liver Foundation.
That's a fun article. I laughed out loud at the Peter Criss Kiss album line.IHateDaveKerpen said:
Spacemans Bong said:
The best part of the piece now is that his mention of the inanity of KISS' followers is coming true on the Youtube link of Nirvana's cover of "Do You Love Me." Kiss fans getting all pissy in the comments and saying "THIS COVER SUCKS, KISS IS STILL AROUND BITCHES!" It's awesome.
I don't know if Stephen Hyden is a good writer or not, because instead of a pen he appears to be jerking on Chuck Klosterman's cock.
His stuff is insufferably derivative.
"Instead of reviewing the most recent Coldplay album, I think I'll talk about whether they are Overrated, Underrated, or Properly Rated! Hilarious, right Chuck? Chuck?..."
Then he throws out stuff that seems designed to make it sound like he knows more than really does.
Um. Ok. Hey, I can play too: Mylo Xyloto is the Rust Never Sleeps of the Toy Story generation!
His stuff is insufferably derivative.
"Instead of reviewing the most recent Coldplay album, I think I'll talk about whether they are Overrated, Underrated, or Properly Rated! Hilarious, right Chuck? Chuck?..."
Then he throws out stuff that seems designed to make it sound like he knows more than really does.
Um. Ok. Hey, I can play too: Mylo Xyloto is the Rust Never Sleeps of the Toy Story generation!
Hyden's ok. He writes well and has been working to do personal music a long time. His style worked well at the (old) AV Club which worked hard to do things differently but still with a critics touch. He's definitely turned it up a lot in his time at Grantland where the readership is ... slightly... different. The wacky is in full force.
Coldplay fucking suck though, so at least he's getting something out of their schlock.
Coldplay fucking suck though, so at least he's getting something out of their schlock.
