Red Mosquito

Hahaha half of this interview is about how he wishes Ariel Pink was as popular as Ed Sheeran

theplatypus wrote:Julian Casablancas is embarrassing



http://www.vulture.com/2018/03/julian-c ... _medium=s1

I skimmed through it, but he does make some good points though. I'm not an expert on how successful Hendrix was or wasn't, but that came out really funny.

"David Bowie was underground" is another good one

theplatypus wrote:Julian Casablancas is embarrassing



http://www.vulture.com/2018/03/julian-c ... _medium=s1

That is a crazy interview. He is embarrassing.

I’m not sure I understand how you’re delineating between music that’s artistically valid and invalid other than by your own taste.
I’ve dedicated my life to analyzing this stuff. It comes from a belief that I developed when I was 15 years old — probably from my stepdad — that art is not subjective. I believe art is objective, and that time is the truth-teller of quality. If you could time travel 30 years into the future, tell me who is going to be more popular: Ed Sheeran or Ariel Pink?

I don’t know.
Don’t you, though? Let go of your conditioning.

Jesus fuck, what a dickhead. What kind of adult is espousing ideas they formed at 15?

How popular are The Strokes these days?

theplatypus wrote:I’m not sure I understand how you’re delineating between music that’s artistically valid and invalid other than by your own taste.
I’ve dedicated my life to analyzing this stuff. It comes from a belief that I developed when I was 15 years old — probably from my stepdad — that art is not subjective. I believe art is objective, and that time is the truth-teller of quality. If you could time travel 30 years into the future, tell me who is going to be more popular: Ed Sheeran or Ariel Pink?

I don’t know.
Don’t you, though? Let go of your conditioning.

I think he's on the right track here and then uses a poor example of artists to compare.
Was having dinner with my son and the singer in his band and the first Black Sabbath album was playing and I said it will be great if your new album has a hit or two but to have a song that's still played nearly 50 years later would be amazing. Being a hit and having a lasting impact can coincide but not very often. I can't imagine someone putting on a Britney Spears song 40 years from now on anything but a dare.

lol

surfndestroy wrote:

theplatypus wrote:I’m not sure I understand how you’re delineating between music that’s artistically valid and invalid other than by your own taste.
I’ve dedicated my life to analyzing this stuff. It comes from a belief that I developed when I was 15 years old — probably from my stepdad — that art is not subjective. I believe art is objective, and that time is the truth-teller of quality. If you could time travel 30 years into the future, tell me who is going to be more popular: Ed Sheeran or Ariel Pink?

I don’t know.
Don’t you, though? Let go of your conditioning.

I think he's on the right track here and then uses a poor example of artists to compare.
Was having dinner with my son and the singer in his band and the first Black Sabbath album was playing and I said it will be great if your new album has a hit or two but to have a song that's still played nearly 50 years later would be amazing. Being a hit and having a lasting impact can coincide but not very often. I can't imagine someone putting on a Britney Spears song 40 years from now on anything but a dare.

Let go of your conditioning.

theplatypus wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

theplatypus wrote:I’m not sure I understand how you’re delineating between music that’s artistically valid and invalid other than by your own taste.
I’ve dedicated my life to analyzing this stuff. It comes from a belief that I developed when I was 15 years old — probably from my stepdad — that art is not subjective. I believe art is objective, and that time is the truth-teller of quality. If you could time travel 30 years into the future, tell me who is going to be more popular: Ed Sheeran or Ariel Pink?

I don’t know.
Don’t you, though? Let go of your conditioning.

I think he's on the right track here and then uses a poor example of artists to compare.
Was having dinner with my son and the singer in his band and the first Black Sabbath album was playing and I said it will be great if your new album has a hit or two but to have a song that's still played nearly 50 years later would be amazing. Being a hit and having a lasting impact can coincide but not very often. I can't imagine someone putting on a Britney Spears song 40 years from now on anything but a dare.

Let go of your conditioning.

I'm bald, I don't use conditioner.

I think I can finally pin-down my top 5, all-time, favorite bands/artists.

1. Pearl Jam
2. Beatles
3. Tom Waits
4. The Decemberists
5. St. Vincent

All white huh? Argo was right about you

What did he say?

That you're all white.

I mean...

Alt-right?

No wait...

alright.

Throw the Beastie boys in there, Joey, then Jorge will leave you alone

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Throw the Beastie boys in there, Joey, then Jorge will leave you alone

To be fair, even if a non-white artist were on the list, the inclusion of The Decemberists would make the list 100% white again.

And only one woman?!

Does a song being popular fifty years later mean that it's better than a song that's popular now?

Not really.