ilovefuzz.com

The venerable Pitchfork reviewer, Zoe Camp, gives it a 5.4, which I think is generous.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/20726-freedom/

If you read the review, it echoes what D.o.S. was saying, that Refused control their own band, basically:

The biggest problem here doesn't lie with [Shellback], but rather with listeners like you and me, waiting with bated breath for an album to match The Shape of Punk to Come. Refused call this the "nostalgia circuit" and they can't stand it, because it's what they've been railing against ever since they started. "Working with somebody like Shellback is a great way of saying, 'We control what we do with this band'" ("fuck you", in other words).

But also echoes what I was saying, in acknowledging the record's influence (she uses the specific example of Paramore, so suck it):

When Refused's immortal genre-busting barn-burner The Shape of Punk to Come was released in 1998, it felt like an alien craft crash-landing on Earth. The Swedish quartet's opus was profoundly ahead of its time... As the years passed, its reputation grew, and it was eventually canonized and revered by everyone from Steve Albini to Hayley Williams of Paramore.

And I think everyone in this thread can agree with the ultimate conclusion, namely, Freedom isn't very good...?

But even under the pretense of ironic ear candy, the band's hijacking of commonplace modern rock proves ultimately to be neither subversive nor satisfying. No, Refused are not fucking dead, but it's unclear from this album what they came back to accomplish.

"Neither subversive, nor satisfying" indeed.

Me reading Pitchfork reviews:

D.o.S. wrote:Holy fuck dude of course you love that movie. It's like you're a living breathing pastiche of every "indie" cliche from 2000-2010.

You know I thought about a lot of the things in this thread and this stuck with me. Am I a pastiche? A walking cliche? I don't feel like one.

But I realized that, yes, I suppose certain aspects of my taste are a bit by-the-numbers. I like the things you might expect a twentysomething white guy from Eastern Canada to like. I also like a lot of things you might not expect such a person to like.

I definitely think that one big difference between me and "hipsters" per se is I'm not at all interested in what's trendy. I wax poetic about a lot of albums but never albums I'll have forgotten in a few months or years. I am, as you pointed out, a canonizer. To quote Rivers Cuomo, "If I hadn't been a musician, I would have been a scientist."

Anybody, thank you for this, because it caused some serious self-reflection. And I came to the conclusion that there isn't really anything wrong with being a pastiche. I'm comfortable with it. If I am a pastiche, so be it. "I yam what I yam."

To flip the tables... you too have a personality that might be seen as something of a cliche. It gels very well with ILF, whereas my canonizing/critic's instinct does not. But don't you think being such a ruthless iconoclast can be exasperating? Whereas neonblack asked me if there are any bands I don't love more than life itself, I find myself wondering if you really like much at all. It's like... your default mode is, that's NOT worthy of being canonized or upheld, that's NOT anything really.

Not a burn or anything, just exploring this "identity-via-music-listening-style" thingy.

I think there are loads of classic records and I'm not sure where you're getting this idea otherwise. Of course, I don't understand where you get the idea that we don't listen to music seriously, either, so maybe it's just failure to communicate.

i.e. you like the fucking Eagles dude you might as well be from Pluto.

D.o.S. wrote:so maybe it's just failure to communicate.

I'd say there's a 100% chance of this

D.o.S. wrote:i.e. you like the fucking Eagles dude you might as well be from Pluto.

You guys might as well be The Dude

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3KLL64mkI[/youtube]

They had some good songs. I don't like the band, I don't like their albums, I like some of their songs.

Mostly because... I've been through so freaking much with them, it's like 90% nostalgia.

D.o.S. wrote:Of course, I don't understand where you get the idea that we don't listen to music seriously, either

Well, I guess you said it, it's like we're from different planets

Like you say Sufjan Stevens is "shitty and unessential"

I would point to Sufjan Stevens as a go-to "discography" artist, where they didn't just have a few classic records or songs, but consistently put out incredible material, and only seem to put out anything if they know it's incredible

Seven Swans, Michigan, Illinois, Age of Adz, and now Carrie and Lowell, even earlier stuff like Enjoy Your Rabbit... I definitely know I'm not alone in saying that those were records that shaped my understanding of the power of music, and exactly how much can be said with a good album concept or theme

What's more, in that album run, he not only consistently put out good material, but also grew and developed as an artist, and that's not easy to do over that much time or that many releases

You're you and I'm me. We're allowed to like different things and we're allowed to think the things the other person likes are stupid, so if you say "I never got into him," "Not my thing," "I dislike" or even "I hate Sufjan Stevens," that's cool. And the funny thing is, I really like iconoclasm. I think we should melt all the golden calves.

But to just call that discography and its achievements "unessential," sweeping statement, seems iconoclastic to the point of being cavalier and dismissive, and that's what's got me butthurt

I acknowledge the butthurt

You're conflating: I don't hate Sufjan Stevens -- I don't listen to Sufjan Stevens. It's not worth listening to. Hence "unessential."

Oh, this thread again

casecandy wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:so maybe it's just failure to communicate.

I'd say there's a 100% chance of this

D.o.S. wrote:i.e. you like the fucking Eagles dude you might as well be from Pluto.

You guys might as well be The Dude

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN3KLL64mkI[/youtube]

They had some good songs. I don't like the band, I don't like their albums, I like some of their songs.

Mostly because... I've been through so freaking much with them, it's like 90% nostalgia.

D.o.S. wrote:You're conflating: I don't hate Sufjan Stevens -- I don't listen to Sufjan Stevens. It's not worth listening to. Hence "unessential."

Fair enough, but did you ever listen to him/it, or just arbitrarily decide not to listen to...? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

*sigh*

let me just tell you I've been a low-key, aspiring musical journalist (low-key yet still writing for some of the biggest servers/magazines here) for about two or three years now and I've never heard about Sufjan Stevens. I mean I have read the name online ONCE, never heard any of his stuff, never got any recommendations to listen to him. Guess the central Europe must have arbitrarily decided not to listen to him.

Newsflash: that favourite band/artist of yours might not be universally known and loved and that's a universal reaction in any discussion like this

DarkAxel wrote:Guess the central Europe must have arbitrarily decided not to listen to him.

This is overwhelmingly possible. While acclaimed in the UK, he is definitely an American artist. He once attempted to write an album for each of America's 50 States. He gave up after two albums but that gives you the idea. It's American poetry.

Sort of like... the Transcendentalists, Emerson, Whitman, Alcott, Thoreau, Melville, etc. Do you guys read that stuff in college or high school in Europe?

DarkAxel wrote:never got any recommendations to listen to him

Consider this your first!

DarkAxel wrote:I've been [a music journalist for three years] and I've never heard about Sufjan Stevens. I mean I have read the name online ONCE, never heard any of his stuff... Newsflash: that favourite band/artist of yours might not be universally known and loved

Conversely, consider that just because you've never heard of a band/artist, does not mean that that band is unimportant, or that nobody else has.

It's odd that a music journalist has never heard of Sufjan Stevens. The average Metacritic score for his main studio albums (Seven Swans, Michigan, Illinois, The Age of Adz, and Carrie and Lowell) is 86.75, from over 40 reviews for each of those albums. Pitchfork, Drowned In Sound, Stereogum, and Consequence of Sound, in particular, never shut up about him. But his commercial peak was circa 2005 so that, plus the Europe thing, is what I'd chalk that up to.

I am fully aware that many of my darlings do not have the critical and commercial success that they deserve.

Titus Andronicus, for example. Barely known on ILF, or among my friends IRL. Pitchfork really liked their one album The Monitor and listed it as #30 on their list of the Best Albums of the Decade So Far. But after that, they and everybody else trailed off. I think the Shakespeare play they're named after dominates them, SEO-wise. They are aware that they need to up their game even, as the bio for their new album attests:

[The Most Lamentable Tragedy]... reveals that +@ are what hardcore fans have said they are for years, and what the world must now recognize them to be: not merely the greatest rock and roll band of this era, but one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time.

#ThirstIsReal LOL

Ha! I literally sign into FB and this is on my feed



The article is good and talks about the album's importance, from someone other than me... you know, so you know I didn't make it up

It's a great article that really nails why this album is worth everyone's time

http://www.stereogum.com/1813154/illino ... niversary/

I'm not being all NA-NA-NANA-NANA, I sincerely believe that this record is worth your time and you'll like it and TBH it's not far off from flawless

Yep, might be an American thing. I have read the authors you listed, but only because I study English language and literature (cultural studies are also a huge part of our curriculum and my interest), out of these, we only read Whitman in high school. Briefly.

My point about not hearing about him was not to demean him, it was simply saying he is not universally acclaimed. It's not like I haven't heard of Led Zep or The Beach Boys (yes, I chose The Beach Boys over The Beatles, because I vastly prefer them and think they were similarly important and experimental, at least up till some point - lets say Pet Sounds)

By which I also mean that since it's not a world-wide phenomenon or a superstar, there shouldn't be that pressure like "Oh, you don't like the Beatles? Why? How can you say The Beach Boys were as experimental man, The Beatles were far out...". No one owes anyone any explanations or second chances to get into it. Give D.o.S a break, man, when he says Sufjan Stevens is unessential, he might mean just what I mean. Shouldn't be any pressure to like it and such. It's not as popular or "good" that everyone should consider making it a part of their lives or discussions just because it's a buzz word.

(ps: can't deny these pressures do exist, can you? although they are bullshit anyway...)

Casecandy, have you ever been in a store where there was an employee that was engaging you about every piece of merchandise you looked at, chatting you up, and following you throughout the store in an effort to sell you something?

Because that's my exact perception of your talking about the bands you dig