---An open letter i wrote to pitchfork media. I thought I'd post it
here, not as flame bait but because i'm curious who else has noticed
something similar---
I have some comments about what I perceive as a site-wide musical bias
from pitchforkmedia, and a concern that specifically your electronic
music reviews are ill-informed and revisionist.
It's clear that pitchfork media's writers come from the "indie rock"
tradition, and by that I do not mean the tradition of independent
musicians (stretching back to the days of jazz) but the cultural
movement of mostly white, educated, suburban males with horn-rimmed
glasses in the early&mid 90's who laid claim to the term "indie."
At the time, their use of the term "indie" importantly only referred to
music made with live instruments on independent labels. Many of the
values were passed down from the grunge scene, including fashion. It
was specifically _not_ used to refer to the music from the bourgeoning
rave movement (or even the third wave of industrial music, such as Nine
Inch Nails) although much of that music was also independently produced
and released.
Accordingly, exclusive fans of electronic music were not
considered "indie." The thread tying together the "indie" scene was
actually a _live music ethic_ rather than the independence of its
musicians. This entailed the sonic artifacts of live performance,
including instrumental mistakes, occasionally cracking voices, and
background noise. Think Sonic Youth, or Pavement. There was a sense
that you were "more indie" if you used crappy equipment, made crappy
recordings on old cassettes, or had a raspy voice. Given the
cumbersome nature of electronic music technology at the time (making it
difficult to play live) and the increasing production values in the
electronic scene, it's not surprising that electronic music was
considered mostly outside the purview of "indie."
It was during this time that most genres of electronic music were being
spawned, including the special case of "IDM," which would be
assimilated by the indie scene only years after the truly pioneering
tracks were first released. It was easily assimilated because IDM
often exalted the same sounds that gave indie music it's live flavor -
sonic artifacts (e.g., Pole), the use of bad or minimal sonic equipment
(e.g., Scanner), and the intentional use of noise (e.g., Aphex,
Autechre). Furthermore, it was seen as the "underground" portion of
electronic music. This was slightly ironic given that even at that
time (late 90's) Aphex Twin and Autechre had probably sold far more
records than the average house/techno/trance/breaks/industrial producer
(whose customers were primarily djs). Many of these less popular
musicians probably exemplified the ideal of the "independent musician"
more than these IDM superstars. Nonetheless, Matador and Merge Records
bought it up, and business was brisk as indie could finally claim a
piece of the electronica pie.
As the production values of rave and industrial music climbed ever
higher, and the aesthetic continued to search for more and
more 'futuristic sounds' (particularly in the fusion of the two genres
with world music known as Goa and now Psytrance), popular music started
going the other direction. Most people couldnt' tell the difference
between an electronic music track produced in 2001 and one from 2003,
because the sound quality wasn't evolving quite as quickly, and the
rate of genre explosion had slowed. IDM labels were still doing well
within the indie community, as evidenced by Merck records, despite the
fact that the genre was already about 10 years old and really hadn't
changed much since the original "Artifical Intelligence" compilations
on Warp.
Then, a resurgence of interest in 70's and 80's music led the way for
IDM artists and ex-indie rockers alike to find "innovation" in
replaying old cliches. Note that several of pitchfork-media's reviews
reflect this attitude by deifying early 80's artists such as The Fall,
Depeche Mode, New Order, Joy Division, and various New Wave acts. With
the exception of indie sweethearts Sonic Youth, Pavement, and their
ilk, the music of the 90's have been erased from the indie definition
of "cool." IDM artists have followed suit in attempt to reclaim
their "indie" fanbase by recreating the late 80's acid sound (such as
the new Aphex material) and in some cases by actually reproducing mid
80's style synth pop (Solvent, for example).
So the winds of change dictate that any electronic music still pursuing
high production values, futuristic sounds, and new high-fidelity sonic
trickery should be lambasted by the indie community as horrible, trite,
and derivative music (ironic given the fact that the indie community is
currently cloning 80's pop, which at the very least is trite and
derivative).
The effects of this intertwined musical/cultural history are apparent
in your reviews. Music from the indie rock or IDM traditions are
consistently reviewed as 'better' than music that derives from the
simultaneous, but very different movements of rave and industrial
music. Consequently, I am afraid that your writers simply do not
understand those genres. Or, maybe they just have an engrained or
subconscious musical & cultural bias against it.
Take, for example, the review of Juno Reactor's Shango (which, by the
way, I would agree was a bad album):
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/j/juno-
reactor/shango.shtml. I understand that the reviewer was partly using
this album as an opportunity to be funny, but even a shallow analysis
easily uncovers the bias inherent to the "indie" view of the electronic
music genres descended from rave and industrial.
First quote:
"The broadly-browed, deeply eye-socketed industrial types at Metropolis
would adore me if this review were written in a hyperbolic, gushingly
adoring fashion. They would colonically irrigate me with their
gladdened tongues if I professed undying affection for Juno Reactor's
fifth album."
As it turns out, I know that the people at Metropolis records would
definitely not even have thanked you for giving them a good review, and
they might indeed forget to send you any more records to review. So
I'm not sure where this writer got his information, although I suppose
I'm forgetting it's not a serious review but rather a comedy routine.
"With their hard-earned soundtrack cash, they've employed Steve
Stevens, Billy Idol's old guitarist, to doodle Hispanically on Shango's
opening track, "Pistelero." The song has been fashioned so that your
industrial disco can get you all high-plains-drifting and Sergio Leone.
You can be a body-popping, cheroot-chewing, Clint Eastwood poncho-
wearing fool. Listening to such malarkey, let alone dancing to it, will
not make you attractive. In fact, you'll be considered a prize tit,
unless you're blessed with a scrumptious bod and are unfeasibly well
hung."
At the time pistolero was released, it was a ground breaking track.
This predated David Thrussel's attempts to use spaghetti western sounds
in danceable electronic music. This had actually never been done
before and was quite innovative. The fact that the reviewer
concentrates on the effect of this track in a "live setting" such as a
dance club reveals a misplaced frame of reference: only indie music,
not rave or industrial, is firmly situated in a live setting where one
can act like a "prize tit" and have it matter. The setting of rave and
industrial music was always the theater of the mind. Part of the fun
of raves and industrial parties has always been the fact that you can
dress up in a bizarre costume, dance around like a tit, and it really
doesn't matter. This reviewer clearly does not understand either a)
the musical innovation of this track or b) the greater context of
electronic music. Why was such a nonexpert picked to review the album?
"But lobbing him into the midst of fully Quantized, sequenced beats
isn't going to allow him to shine like Steven Scales did on those early
eighties Talking Heads' releases."
Again, the praise of early 80's music is apparent. The reviewer also
incorrectly capitalizes "quantized" and shows a lack of knowledge of
danceable electronic music's primary technique: polyrhythms.
Overlaying quantized beats with shuffled or non-quantized rhythms is
what gives good electronic music it's "swing" and funk. But I wouldn't
expect a professional record reviewer to know that.
It's also worth saying that David Byrne has always been electronically
produced and has certainly used his fair share of drum tracks
quantization.
"Removed from the soundtrack to a Hollywood holiday blockbuster, the
ham-fisted brutality Juno Reactor exhibit is openly clumsy and,
initially, bloody amusing. But brutality can be beautiful. Alec
Empire's Curse of the Golden Vampire proves that one doesn't have
induce belly laughs, ear-ache or dyspepsia to make the ugly appealing"
Again, notice the bias toward the darling of indie's acquired genre,
Alec Empire, who never really produced anything that hadn't been done
by industrial noise artists before him (try Panacea, Winterkalte or
Esplendor Geometrico).
"While industrial bands sound stuck in Orwell's 1984, and their albums
resemble gruffer-than-thou remakes of Depeche Mode's Speak and Spell,
pioneering techno artists are presently casting aside the obvious and
investigating the clicks and cuts of digital accidents."
CURRENTLY? What decade is this reviewer living in?
Pole "investigated" these clicks and cuts in 2000, Haujobb did it
before them with "99," Uwe Schmidt did it as industrial group "Lassigue
Bendthaus" on the Cloned EP in the mid 90s, Warp records did it in
1993, and Zoviet France/Dead Voices on Air did it in the late 80s.
This reviewer is clearly uninformed about current electronic music
trend - no one would claim that the investigating of clicks and cuts of
digital accidents is a 'current' trend. Anyone currently doing that is
at risk of legal action for plagiarism.
I'm sure that I could find additional examples of your site's bias, but
I am tired of writing. If you have questions, please feel free to ask,
particularly about how you might acquire knowledgeable electronic music
reviewers.
Best of luck in doing justice to music you don't understand,
Chris Chatham.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org