People who don't like Antifolk
Thu, 04/19/2012 - 4:24am
Dear OJ scene,
as some of you might know, I'm currently writing my thesis on the Antifolk scene and I'm currently quite interested in the question of why some people have expressed antipathy/dislike/"hate" against the Antifolk scene. I've come across Devandra Banhart's comment (http://www.arthurmag.com/2011/02/18/so-righteous-to-love-devendra-banhar...) in Arthur Magazine, and also Kaki King's banter about her experience at Sidewalk (she's angry because she didn't get booked during the Hoot, but still namechecks Sidewalk as one of the places where she's "started" her career on her website). Do you know of other instances in which artists have expressed similar sentiments? I hope this question is not too weird or awkward... I'm particularly interested why and how artists express their dislike for the scene. Thanks for any feedback!
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 10:36am
#2
Pitchfork
I actually got "Me Me Me" reviewed in Pitchfork. It was a really long time ago, long before they were the important industry source that they are now. I just sent them my CD and they reviewed it. There was a short period of time when that actually worked. I've also got a page long "hand written" rejection letter from Drag City. They told me to try "putting some folk in my anti?"
I think I got a 6 out of 10 or something like that on the Pitchfork Review. I thought the writing was not bad. The entire review was kind of a play upon my name (Major Matt Mason USA). They addressed me like I was some kind of super hero on a mission. It was cute, at least entertaining. I don't remember any reference to Antifolk. As kind of an experiment, I've been following Pitchfork more closely for about a year now. I made it my homepage. I have to say the format is very good for attracting people. There's lot's of content, video, free streaming tracks, big color pics, etc... New stuff is constantly going up. They clearly have the machine working for them. There's a real variety of different kinds of music. But I don't really find most of what is on there very interesting, which kind of makes sense. I wouldn't consider myself their target audience. I have to admit that even as my homepage I probably only click on something about every 3 or 4 days and actually read an entire article about once every 2 weeks or so. There is very little content that seems truly edgy or ground breaking to me. When your idea of excitement is watching youtubes of someone's performance on Jimmy Kimmel you're kind of officially not part of the counter culture anymore. I barely even look at the reviews to be honest. I think the writing here has really declined, which I think is supposedly what made them what they are. Now, it just seems like everything else on the Internet that has a lot of money behind it. Occasionally, there is a good article here and there but I don't find most of it to be very compelling. How could it be? There are clear darlings of the site that seem to appear repeatedly. It's really quite obvious if you check out the site with any regularity. If you're not a fan of them then I think the site gets pretty boring at times.
I tend to like the Pitchfork Weekly Video Cast. And here's an article I liked: http://pitchfork.com/features/resonant-frequency/8811-follow-people-if-y...
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 12:29am
#3
most regional, local scenes
most regional, local scenes are considered the "ghetto" scenes where artists who have moved on to bigger and better things came from, so most local scenes are really put down in the press, but maybe thats a good badge to have, antifolk is so varied in sound its not easy for writers to really understand it, if u look at all the different kinds of performers its impossible to make sense of it the way music writers think. Tonight I listened to a old time program, a post punk program and a house program on the radio and during the old time program the dj played old time music, during the postpunk show the dj played postpunk, and during the house show the dj played house. I don't think you could make an antifolk show like that it is 2 varied, imean think about the antifolk scene all kinds of music performed all kind of ways, u could actually say it is more a social network than anything else we should change the name of antifolk to social network or sonet, i think more people would be able to understand it
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 5:36am
#4
wow, thanks guys! Jeff, could
wow, thanks guys! Jeff, could I quote you?
i agree regarding pitchfork - there's a crazy quote in their review of the moldy peaches' "unreleased cutz and jamz":
"The entire scene is a bit of a sham; Antifolk is nothing more than an infantile fringe of acoustic punk – imagine if the Violent Femmes' development halted at age 9 and not 13, and you get the picture. (...) Folk deserves a better nemesis"
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:32am
#5
On the DB quote
It kind of sounds to me like Banhart misunderstands what Antifolk is supposed to represent. Which, granted, is an easy thing to do. I think the "Anti" in Antifolk comes from being Anti - Hypocrisy. I think it's what Bob Dylan was afraid of by not associating himself with the neofolk or topical folk movement. It's a denouncement of the idealized Utopian concepts of the "Hippie" movement of the 60's. It's a little more like the Yippies or what I would consider the seeds of the Punk movement. But then by also associating its self with the more liberal and free minded aspects of the Folk movement it avoids the militant and fashionable concepts that would eventually subvert and commercialize the Punk movement. In my opinion Antifolk negates the "trendy" or fashionable aspects of both of these subverted movements, takes their more successful political ideals, and mashes them together. I think to be an "Antifolk Star" is an oxymoron and that's probably what keeps me attracted to the movement.
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 11:18am
#6
I haven't read the other responses.
Regarding Devandra I remember he set up a show at--yep a church--in Brooklyn. diane cluck played, someone else played, and he played.
I was there and afterwords he asked me to play at a party/get together he was having in the future.
I dismissed him as someone--let's just say I thought "I can't play at every party someone holds" and turned down the offer.
I guess I was too egoey to realize this invitation was worth accepting.
Devandra was very polite and accepted my "no" with total peacefulness.
I went to the party though, and diane played and I remember Dave Deporis playing.
That's when it hit me what a moron I had been, because the shows/set-up was pretty fucking nice.
I can underatsnd if he saw someone at Sidewalk attempting to get attention by saying stuff about doo-doo or something without it meaning anything to them, that he would be turned off by that. I know that I have been.
I agree (I skimmed Matt's post on the way to the bottom) with Matt that Devandra may not have known what "antifolk" was, especially since he liked me (initially), diane cluck, and Dave Deporis, and maybe others I just don't know about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not get booked at my first hoot either.
That was February 1998. (Wrong. Jeff Lewis pointed out to me that I was possibly mistaken, and I was. I first appeared there in 1999, not 1998.)
I had a bad attitude that night and while I had good material I delivered it like an imposter and wasn't so good.
I asked Lach about how I could get a show and he said "Just keep coming back."
The next week I was relaxed and being nice instead of a dick and I did a good job and he offered me a show.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 04/20/2012 - 12:43pm
#7
Major Matt I miss you!!
Major Matt I miss you!! How's Kansas? A topic for another conversation perhaps!
Barry, do you really predate me at Sidewalk??? You started in Feb 1998?? I started playing Sidewalk sometime in spring 1998... I don't remember meeting you till later... maybe you mean Feb 1999?? Of course it took me a long time of playing every Monday to meet anybody so maybe you were there in early 1998 and we didn't meet each other.
Sibsi, let me know what part of what I said you want to quote, just so I know what I'm approving!
I love the Pitchfork quote that you posted, I'll post it again:
"The entire scene is a bit of a sham; Antifolk is nothing more than an infantile fringe of acoustic punk – imagine if the Violent Femmes' development halted at age 9 and not 13, and you get the picture. (...) Folk deserves a better nemesis"
It's perfectly off the mark. Was there ever even another band that made use of pre-adolescent/adolescent preoccupations, other than the Moldy Peaches? I'm not even saying that is a bad thing to do, it's actually a pretty genius thing to do if done well. I'm just incredulous about the quality of this journalism, did they actually find that there was ANY other stuff that could fall into the category of "imagine if the Violent Femmes' development halted at age 9 and not 13"?? Am I forgetting other bands? Remind me, people!!
(Also, a band that really sounded like a 9-year-old Violent Femmes would actually be pretty darn awesome, right??)
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned in the "why don't people like Antifolk" discussion is Lach. I have nothing against Lach or his music, in fact I've often been a fan of both Lach as a person to hang out with and Lach as a writer/performer, BUT I think it might be fair to say that there was a big imbalance between the amount of promotion Lach did for himself as representative of antifolk and the amount that his music and interests actually did represent antifolk, and perhaps a certain amount of PR-damage was done for the scene as a whole that has never been undone. In other words, Lach probably put more effort into promotion than almost anybody that I knew on the open mic scene, at least in the time when I was starting out there - this is not a bad thing, I think artists have a right to tell the world that they exist, and if artists have the organizational skills to send out press releases and get reviews, etc, then that's great - but I think that part of what Lach would usually say in his press releases was stuff along the lines of presenting himself as one of the leaders and/or exemplars of the antifolk scene, and therefore anybody listening to his music would have gotten the sense that they were getting a "best-of-antifolk" view just by hearing Lach. Again, I'm not saying I don't like Lach's recordings, but I think it's fair to say that they should not be used as a guide to "what antifolk sounds like." Even if antifolk is difficult to define in any one artist, I'd be more inclined to say that if Lach's recordings had sounded like Mike Rechner or Joie DBG, or Joe Bendik, then perhaps the whole NY press perception of antifolk would have had a chance to be a tiny bit more accurate from the get-go. Maybe that would have made no difference. But I find it hard to believe that people like Mike Rechner, Joie DBG or Joe Bendik were sending out as many press releases as Lach in the 90s, so I do think that a lot of the press misconception of antifolk may have stemmed from an unequal amount of ambition in who was making their music known to the press, for one thing.
Or maybe none of that would have mattered.
After all, the Moldy-curated "Antifolk Vol 1" and the MMM-curated "This is Antifolk" compilations don't really make the scene any more easily defined (which may have not been the point of those comps, but if we're talking about press conceptions of antifolk then we have to keep in mind the limited ways the press has been exposed to any of it).
Thu, 05/03/2012 - 10:34am
#8
I miss you too Jeff! I miss you all.
Please keep me posted here on what you guys are up to. It feeds my soul.
The history of my relationship with Lach is no secret, so I'd say I have to agree with some of what Jeff has said here. I think all musical movements have these kinds of people who attempt to claim some kind of proprietary position. History, eventually, catches up with them. One can argue that Lach's self aggrandizing, and occasionally even threatening, style has tainted Antifolk for some. I know it did for me. But then you have to also factor in the amount of PR work that Lach did to promote the scene and foster a lot of great talent through the Anti-hoots. It's an interesting life lesson in how sometimes the by product of people's, not all together altruistic, aspirations can result in a greater good. Sounds a little like capitalism. Don't know if it's the most efficient way of getting things done but history rolls on. I would call Lach the "Doctor Frankenstein" of Antifolk. He created a monster. Maybe that monster is winding down? I can't tell? Or maybe it is just following the instructions of its father and chooses to be "Ungrateful" when success shines upon it? Paleface said something to me a long time ago that I will never forget. He said something like: Lach can't control Antfolk. It's much bigger than him.
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 11:17am
#9
..
No, I do not predate you.
I was mistaken.
I first went there in February 1999.
I agree regarding the Lach stuff.
I believe that a lot of the lyrics of some of the best songs performed at Sidewalk are just too taboo-free for a lot of people to be comfortable with.
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:59pm
#10
antifolk
not to be annoying but in my opinion an antifolk thesis really has to start with suzanne vega in the west village, dosn't a thesis have to have 2 sides of a story anyway
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:37pm
#11
FYI
I just saw an ad that Suzanne Vega is playing in Kansas City With Duncan Sheik. Is this the nemesis/future of Antifolk!?!?!
Sat, 04/21/2012 - 4:23pm
#12
I won't add much to this,
I won't add much to this, except to say that if I was going to play someone music that I felt was representative of antifolk, I'd insist they let me spin 4-5 artists minimum. I'd probably start with Hamell on Trial. I just feel that as a first impression, he really socks you in the jaw...you can get the punk, the face solo, and some poetic/direct/uncouth lyrics in under 3 minutes. The second person I'd play might actually be Brook Pridemore, something live with audience participation. Then I'd move on to any number of artists, including any of you. I think that music can effect people in all sorts of ways, but the one thing that it does better than any art form is make people dance, get off their ass, and sing together. Politics/honesty/truth/authenticity are a close second to music's primary purpose (in my opinion). Dancing, the physical aspect of getting out of one's seat and going nuts, was a huge part of the punk movement and a big part of what separated 80s folk from early antifolk that I've heard. The dirge/goofy/mellow/thoughtful/etc acts in the antifolk scene are very important, but they can't hold antifolk on their own without the acts that make you go nuts with just a guitar (or piano!).
Devandra, based on his quote, simply doesn't understand antifolk...through no fault of his own.
Anyway, my two cents.
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 12:22pm
#13
Good point.
I wouldn't forget classics like Roger Manning and Billy Syndrome for this. Lach and Joie DBG were no slouches in that department as well. I think these qualities remind me a bit more of what is going on with groups like Ghost Mice and the Plan-It-X Punk Folk scene. Where do they fit in on all this? I've been equally inspired by scenes like this and the Olympia scene of K-Records. To me the ultimate Antifolk artist would be someone like Daniel Johnston and I don't think he even associates himself with the movement directly.
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 3:33pm
#14
deleted
.
Sun, 04/22/2012 - 3:32pm
#15
No one has the last word.
Antifolk is something different for everybody.
My list would include Daneil Johnston, and Jon Berger.
I would also say that a person can be antifolk for a while and then not anymore--perhaps.
Mon, 04/23/2012 - 2:29pm
#16
Good discussion.
Good discussion.
I think sometimes Lach's records haven't even been representative of what LACH sounds like, let alone Antifolk. :)
That's not a diss on the albums --they may represent part of his vision-- but I've always been creatively inspired and influenced more by what he pulled off live. Though what he played me of his new album sounded closer to representing that.
That was a common problem with the scene in the 1990s. Everyone was trying to make their records sound "professional", and instead they sounded like amateur recordings that someone had spent a lot of money on. (Mary Ann Farley was a notable exception, but her songs lent themselves to production, and she had Alan Douches engineering, and she spent everything she had to get them perfect.) I remember even Hamel on Trial's first big label album having that problem. You could hear the effort, striving, and fussiness that went into the recording, and it often made these things a chore to listen to. The CDs consistently seemed to be a betrayal of the alleged aesthetic people were working with live. I think Jeff Lewis, MMM, and The Moldy Peaches were the first in the community to really get over that problem. I may be slighting Paleface, but the record I'm thinking of (his second album?) was sort of an accident and hard to listen to.
The mentions of Suzanne Vega and K records are interesting. I feel that I've been doing a version of the thing that I do since roughly 1982, my mid-teens. Early on, I always felt that I lacked a community that I wanted to associate with. The hardcore scene of Boston was the only bunch of kids I knew of --other than me-- writing songs near me. I admired them, but there was a depressing sameness to the music, and it was only so interesting to me if it was in the foreground.
So I remember being very excited by the first Suzanne Vega album (1984ish), because it felt like it opened up some possibilities in quiet-ish music that had a little more intensity and edge than the standard "folk" scene of the time --even though she came from that scene. And the Roches, who came out of the scene a few years earlier, were super exciting to me, too. Their two Fripp albums were fantastic, and "Nurds" had a couple of amazing punk-folk experiments.
Then, I lived in Seattle smack dab in the middle of the grunge craze, and part-time produced at the radio station that helped break Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc (KNDD). Again, though I admired some of it, I felt totally out of place, and recorded a quiet, weirdish Lookalikes USA album in my basement apartment with absolutely no expectation of anyone ever hearing it. Discovering the Olympia scene of the time through various singles and comps (Kill Rock Stars was a good label, too) was extremely exciting to me, and led to my putting some very clumsy drums on some of our folky songs. We felt they worked! K records (and cub in Vancouver) opened things up. By the way....Danny Kelly's band of the time, Creep, recorded one of the singles I most loved.
Discovering Daniel Johnson (Hi How Are You) and Michelle Shocked (Texas Campfire) in 1988, and then hearing Roger Manning's SST album on Seattle Radio a couple years later, all blew me away. And, of course, Jonathan Richman. Ah ha! Kramer's label, "Shimmy Disc." It had Daniel Johnston, King Missile, and the Tinklers, among others. Surely that's an important part of the story.
So, finding the Antifolk scene, after these little islands of hope in a few scattered performers, was a big deal. But they all feel like part of the same continuum.
So, I guess I'm just saying I agree. I fear I trot out this story a lot. I hope it's not too much of a tangent.
I do think Jeff is correct about the dangers of Sidewalk being such a comfortable scene, if one is unambitious. But the flipside of that is...not everyone needs to be ambitious! The touring, self-promoting life is not for everyone. It may not be for me. I guess I'm in a period of trying to figure out ways to make a life for myself that involves more creativity, exposure to the world, and some income, while minimizing the parts of it all that I hate or feel unable to handle. I may get to the point where Sidewalk is the only BAR....or food/drink venue.... that I agree to play at....and that will only be if they continue their efforts to isolate the sound of the back room from the rest of the place. It's just getting too depressing fighting with the environment to be heard. And house concerts and reading series are really lovely things to play at.
Mon, 04/23/2012 - 3:32pm
#17
I lost track of why I was
I lost track of why I was telling that semi-personal story.
So...Alex Wolf and I finally released our album in 1996 at Sidewalk, to a packed house, 3 or 4 years after we'd recorded the bulk of it in Seattle. And it felt like it had finally found a home and a community where it made sense.
The point of all this is not that I was doing anything extraordinary in these earlier years, just that there was no sense of community, venue or delivery system for it. My tastes and tendencies ran to something that was not being promoted, yet made perfect sense to me. And it turned out, eventually, that there were a whole bunch of people who were thinking similarly....though each was unique. I suspect that my story is a typical one. Heck, it's been interesting hearing Peter Dizozza excavating his late 1970s recordings recently. He was totally himself already (though he has developed and deepened, of course). I don't feel like he's changed what he did to fit into a scene....he just contributes what he naturally does towards the conversation that is the community.
So, it feels a little absurd when Devendra or Pitchfork tries to sum up this thing, as if it is even an invented "thing." I think it's a vague collection of tendencies that have always been around. Charles Herold wrote a hilarious, dead-on article in an old Antimatters that fictitiously traced the origins of Antifolk to some earlier century where someone wrote a rude parody of "Barbara Allen," or threw rotten fruit at a troubadour, and was put in the stocks for his troubles. But Elizabeth Cotten or Mississippi John Hurt would be welcome and revered at a place like Sidewalk.
I do think the term Antifolk has been at least as much of a hindrance as a help. But no other term has ever stuck. It really means "anti-genre" if anything, and I think that's a negative with a positivity I can get behind.
Mon, 04/23/2012 - 4:44pm
#18
Is it really true that
Is it really true that anything Antifolk is considered uncool by the media? The Moldy Peaches seemed to get a lot of "cool" press. And in their wake, I noticed a dramatic and sudden shift in the sorts of press the scene got. I have not actually noticed much press saying that, say, Jeff Lewis is uncool. ;)
I remember Robert Christgau saying some dissy things about Antifolk in the 1990's, including a passing reference to Paleface. But he changed that up with he fell in love with the Peaches.
Ah yes! a review of Dan Bern by Christgau, 1997:
If he didn't make me laugh where his fellow wannabees make me wince (while trying to make me laugh), I might even figure him for one of those losers who claims Beck got his best shit from Paleface.
(But....he does like Paleface's "Burn and Rob," theme of which Beck did indeed steal.)
This was typical of the kind of swipes the scene was getting back then. Christgau still totally misses Jeff Lewis, actually. Just doesn't get him at all. oh wait! no, he finally likes the new one. Good.
Tue, 04/24/2012 - 7:49pm
#19
Yes, but I love how Christgau
Yes, but I love how Christgau writes when he misses people.
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:47pm
#20
I have a general weakness for
I have a general weakness for Christgau. He's funny and smart, even when he misses the boat. I've gained a lot reading about the stuff he likes, if not as much from the stuff he doesn't like.
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 6:28pm
#21
One of my favorites is one
One of my favorites is one for a Richard Thompson album:
The Old Kit Bag [Cooking Vinyl/SpinArt, 2003]
and he writes better songs than Clapton too ("Outside of the Inside," "Happy Days and Auld Lang Syne") *
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:56pm
#22
Speaking of Christgau, I've
Speaking of Christgau, I've been doing this "Sonnet Youth" project lately, turning Sonic Youth lyrics into sonnets just for fun. Here's Sonic Youth's famously anti-Christgau song "Kill Yr Idols" (supposedly originally titled "I Killed Christgau With My Big Fucking Dick"), and below it is my sonnet version of it.
KILL YR IDOLS (written by Thurston circa 1983)
I don't know why / You wanna impress Christgau / Ah let that shit die/ And find out the new goal.
Kill yr idols / Sonic death / It's the end of the world / Your confusion is sex.
AND here it is in sonnet form re-write:
KILL YR IDOLS
It fills me up with anger and depression
There's more to art than being on a list now
So why still try to make a good impression
On any music critic, even Christgau?
Leave behind all former tags and titles
Slay them with your brutal sonic force
As Nietzsche said, you have to kill your idols.
All uncertainty is intercourse
Keep skepticism strong and un-suspending
Perhaps that's what the message of this tune is
The world you knew is coming to an ending
So kill it and embrace the crazy newness.
And kill me also, if I get too preachy.
Treat no one sacred - me, Christgau or Nietzsche.
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:31pm
#23
When people ask me to define
When people ask me to define antifolk I have only one answer, and that is to direct them to Applications for Employment by Charles Latham.
http://www.myspace.com/antifolksoutheastwinterextravaganza2007/music/son
I think this one song perfectly defines AF, and if someone can't understand it after listening to this, then they never will.
Sat, 05/05/2012 - 10:44am
#24
Lach
I'd like to clarify my position-to a certain extent at least.
I have always believed Lach was a genius at managerial/booking/talent-spotting/organizational stuff, and an above average songwriter (or an average one that worked harder at it than most).
I pretty much told him that once. He was not at all angry.
He disagreed, but that was that.
I saw a guy tell him something similar once and Lach continued to book him and champion him as a great talent, so I have a lot of respect for Lach.
The hype regarding the music is overkill in my opinion, and the music is not the best "antifolk" has produced.
Lach is a friend of mine, and he did some things for me over the years that I greatly appreciate.
He was always supportive.
Could the Sidewalk Cafe scene have happened without him?
Absolutely not.
Sun, 05/06/2012 - 10:03am
#25
Thesis
Sibsi,
I don't know if this helps, but here is the email address of someone who also wrote their thesis on Antifolk back in 2004 knife.edge at gmx.de. I am not positive what he came up with at the time, but his name is Jürgen and I would think that he would be willing to help.
If you need an outsider's perspective I might not be a bad person to talk too either.
Lemme know-
Brad at antifolkonline.com
Just moved to Dallas, Texas two days ago... I hear it gets hot here!!!
Brad
Tue, 05/08/2012 - 5:04am
#26
Just caught Jeff's reference
Just caught Jeff's reference to the deleted 0/10 Pitchfork review of the Flaming Lips' "Zaireeka." 0. That is astounding.
That is possibly the single most influential album on my compositional/arranging/live-experiments development of the past, oh, 15 years. Stupid, just stupid.
HI Sibsi!
Anything associated with Sidewalk or antifolk is automatically NOT cool, as far as any important/hip American press outlets are concerned.
This is a great topic - I'd love to see some feedback on this.
I have often said that one crucial difference between Diane Cluck's career and Devendra's career is that Devendra never played Sidewalk - if he had, he would have automatically become considered antifolk, and immediately he would have lost any chance at being considered cool by the American press.
This may have something to do with Shilpa Ray also somehow not being better known.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olDjwOj8apc&feature=related
She's great, young, beautiful, talented, unique, fierce, any combination of elements that should make an up and coming performer newsworthy (at least a little bit), but she had the bad luck of getting started at Sidewalk, which will make anybody's hike into indie embrasure a tough one.
Everybody of course has a big list of artists who "should be better known," and the process of becoming better known is tricky for everybody, involving a lot of luck and hard work and time and other factors. But it really seems to be the case that any association with Sidewalk/antifolk will make the process of getting "better known" a lot harder for American artists in America. The most important press outlets for any up and coming hip new act are things like Pitchfork and Vice and the Arthur (I liked the Arthur but I think it's no longer being printed), these are where "buzz bands" often get their buzz. I think you'd have a hard time finding ANY instances of hip press outlets giving credit to any act associated with Sidewalk/antifolk. I think you could do a mathematical average of the ratings given to Sidewalk artists and compare to the average of other artists, or even compare to the average of ratings in "non-hip" publications.
Okay, here's my own Pitchfork ratings and average:
Pitchfork ratings:
6.3 = Em Are I
2.3 = 12 Crass Songs
6.5 = City & Eastern Songs
3.9 = It's the Ones Who've Cracked
5 = The Bundles
overall Jeffrey average = 4.8 with Bundles, or 4.75 without Bundles.
So according to Pitchfork, my average of ten years is a completely failing grade. That's fine, I don't think I necessarily deserve top marks, but it is a way lower average than the rest of the media reviews that I've gotten. I've had a lot of quite good press in almost any press outlet you can name from small to large, but without the stamp of Pitchfork approval you don't really get known in the indie world in America, no matter what else happens. The major difference seems to be that "hip" media like Pitchfork considers all things antifolk-associated to be very unhip.
An interesting thing about Pitchfork, who are by far the most powerful tastemakers of indie music in America, is that they do try to keep a consistent image for themselves. Which seems to mean that it's hard for them to change their mind, once they have decided they don't like something, seemingly as a company policy. Although the reviews are written by a number of different people, there is an overall "company policy" image that they try to maintain, which may be part of why they have maintained their hip image. They even delete or alter older reviews that don't fit with what they want their overall image to be, in a constant process of trying to stay as hip as possible, and trying to show as little internal inconsistency as possible.
See this Wikipedia article for examples:
Deleted and changed reviews
Pitchfork has been criticized for deleting older reviews from their archive in an effort to keep up with the changing trends in indie music. One such example is the 9.5/10 review written for Save Ferris' album It Means Everything.[21] Similarly, the original review of Psyence Fiction by UNKLE received 9.8/10, but the review was later deleted and when the group released their next album 4 years later, the website gave it a score of 5.0/10 and described it as an improvement on their debut, calling Psyence Fiction 'one of the most anti-climactic and jaw-dropping disappointments of recent years' which 'came up short on little things like, oh, vitality, restraint, emotional resonance, and tunes.'[22]
Negative reviews of two By Divine Right albums were also removed from Pitchfork after members Brendan Canning and Leslie Feist became successful with the band Broken Social Scene and their own solo work. Steven Byrd's deleted review of By Divine Right's Bless This Mess, on which Canning and Feist play bass and guitar, went so far as to compare the band to "retard(s) with a guitar" who "wouldn't know Rock and Roll if she broke into their house and beat up their children," rating the album 1.8 out of ten.[23] After Belle & Sebastian's "comeback" in the mid-to-late 2000s, Pitchfork removed their 0.8-rated review of The Boy With the Arab Strap from the site.[24][25] The reviewer lambasted the band for writing songs that were "so sticky they should be hanging from Ben Stiller's ear, and I don't mean that in a good way."[26] Pitchfork originally gave the Flaming Lips album Zaireeka a scathing 0.0/10 in a review that also derided all Flaming Lips fans.[27] The review has since been deleted, and Pitchfork now praises the album.[28]
Okay, anyway, aside from Pitchfork, why is it that antifolk is disliked?
Part of it is certainly the inclusive nature of the open mic itself - anybody can play. That is what gives it its power, but there is obviously NO quality control. Somebody like Devendra, who might have heard early in his time in NYC that Sidewalk was a good place to go, might very well have walked in to Sidewalk on a Monday or any other night and seen some very UN-hip stuff. Just a matter of luck, of what night or what time you pop in. This in fact happened to me at first - when I first saw the Sidewalk open mic, before I started performing, I thought "this is awful!" But for me this gave me the courage to start playing there, because it felt unthreatening. Whereas if I was trying to be a part of a cool scene, be a part of a young hip crowd, I might have immediately turned around and gone over to Pete's Candy Store instead, or some other small place to start which has a higher percentage of young, pretty, well-dressed, culturally "with it" people. Sidewalk's open mic is wide open to anybody - older people, younger people, poorer people, richer people, stranger people, more normal people - not just the small section of society that is the "hip" section.
The other thing that's a problem with getting your start at Sidewalk is that it is such a self-enclosed world you can feel like there's no need to stretch outside of it. You can have your fans AT SIDEWALK, get your press AT SIDEWALK, have your album release show AT SIDEWALK, play the festivals AT SIDEWALK, make friends with other performers AT SIDEWALK, make tour plans with other artists you met AT SIDEWALK, etc etc. The environment there is wonderful because it does provide all these possibilities, but it is detrimental too because you can become quite used to the comfortable small world of Sidewalk and have a painful shock when that world crashes against the culture that the rest of the music world inhabits. There's nothing wrong with being part of the Sidewalk/antifolk world, but if you start having ambitions beyond that world then you quickly realize it's a pretty different place with different priorities.
I think maybe it's the matter of priorities -
When there's bad or mediocre reviews in Pitchfork or elsewhere, the reviews only acknowledge that the work in question has failed at meeting certain priorities. However, the work may have done a brilliant job at fulfilling entirely different priorities, but it is the function of hipness to have a narrower filter.