Hey remember when we asked you to send in haikus to earn a chance at free Lollapalooza tickets? Yeah, we want you to do that again. Don’t call us lazy! It’s just that the entries thus forth have been pretty rad and we’d like a P4k-related chunk of zen poetry as well. For our fridge. Send them to contests@thetripwire.com and make them good and tickets shall be yours.

Ever since Wavves aka Nathan Williams had a little mental breakdown on the Pitchfork-curated stage at the Primavera Sound festival in Barcelona a few weeks ago, the music site has taken a not-so-subtle negative stance towards Williams whenever it sees an opportunity. It began with the actual news story of Wavves bad Primavera show, which Pitchfork founder Ryan Schreiber himself began with this little cat scratch directed at the Best New Music-earning band…

Over the past six months, the San Diego no-fi outfit Wavves has notoriously made a better bedroom project than live band.

… and finished with a suggestion that Williams and drummer Ryan Ulsh might kill each other before they even made it to Pitchfork’s own music festival on July 18th. The latter bit of blood lust has proven itself to be untrue with the passage of time, but the former seems an odd assertion considering Schreiber is presumably the one who booked (or approved the booking of) Wavves at both Primavera and the Pitchfork Festival. We’ve also seen Wavves several times in venues both large and small and he’s never failed to be pretty awesome, if not more accessible than he is on record.

So what are we to make of Pitchfork’s recent Wavves-bashing editorial direction, which culminated today in a post that quotes Black Lips’ Jared Swilley talking wildly about Williams in a Norwegian radio interview, crescendos (yeah, blog posts crescendo) with “it should be noted that this is not the first time a band has talked shit about Wavves” (yes, clearly should be noted) and mentions both bands will be at Pitchfork’s festival and ends with “Feel the drama!” (really?)?

We’d like to hear what you think in the comments section. Has Wavves one bad show earned the ire of music’s biggest critic? Is Pitchfork just trying to pump up its festival’s ticket sales? Or is Pitchfork just being a dick? Let’s hear it.

Are You Reading This?

I don’t know if I would be.

In 2009, how does one offer an over-saturated musical blogosphere another column worth reading? How does one differentiate themselves from the legions of blogs offering the same imitated or emulated musical opinions as the next? Can we expect a Darwinian effect that will see the demise of websites and blogs that have no sustainable reason for their existence? Or can we expect a continued influx of under-qualified and over-spoken neophytes wanting their own site on Wordpress? I voiced my online-existential anxieties to Stuart Berman (of Pitchfork Media and Eye Weekly) a few months ago. “Where is there left to go? What’s left to offer when there’s already a Pitchfork, already a Rolling Stone, already a BBC, etc.?” I asked, knowing full well the impossibility of actually addressing such inquiry in a casual discussion. He was unbothered. “Honestly, good writing is good writing. At the end of the day, that is the stuff that will make it.” Touché, Stuart. Cynical Me wanted to say, “Well, easier for you to say when a part of wildly reputable organization with a cult-like following.” Reasonable Me stops Cynical Me from actually saying it.

I talk to Derek about this.

mcranston: How does a music blog sustain itself?
derek: realistically, or theoretically?
mcranston: both …
derek: theoretically, it’s through ads and sponsorships, etc
derek: but realistically, it’s traffic
mcranston: isn’t that more realistically?
mcranston: theoretically, i think blogs sustain themselves through constant updates, contemporary relevance, and expositions of new bands.
mcranston: realistically, it’s obviously just about money.
mcranston: and site traffic is intrinsically linked to money.
derek: yeah, i agree
derek: ultimately good content will bring people in
derek: or i should say, keep them there
derek: but honestly, that’s not so true
derek: it’s really about luring them in
mcranston: Exactly.
mcranston: and that’s the question I’m trying to ask.
derek: it can also mean a big exclusive story or MP3
mcranston: okay …
derek: the first site to post an Animal Collective MP3 is going to get a ton of traffic, so it’s a game a little bit. bit then a pfork or fader they have a built in audience, so they can kind of expose new people and not worry about whether they have enough “big” content on their site.

We don’t get very far and my queries subsist. How does any music blog sustain itself? Berman’s right: patience, trust in quality writing, patience, a unique voice, patience and some sort of cohesive/organized body. Granting these elusive qualities, what then is the ultimate aspiration of the Music Blog? Perhaps to present a mode of thinking that allows the reader of any genre to appreciate a sound or style to which he or she may not commonly gravitate (I guess?). Successfully articulating why an artist is worth listening is no easy task. Most websites don’t accomplish this feat, and few writers come close. Besides, this presupposes the reader is willing to read past the rating.

Being Jaded Is Easy

The torrent of information has already flooded and we’re bored and stagnant. The stories on Stereogum take two minutes to read. Pitchfork’s precise numerical grading system renders a careful reading of the actual review completely extraneous (i.e. an 8.1> is worth getting when you have time, an 8.8> should be downloaded within the day). Hipster Runoff is the absolute pinnacle of a frighteningly self-aware (and self-referential) media that has come to realize the ridiculousness of its environment. It’s like a fish being aware he swims in a fish tank. William Bowers, under the Puritan Blister pseudonym, recently explored Twitter’s insidious effect on the written word. To synthesis his article (though his distinctive prose should encourage a close reading): Bowers worries about the ADD of today’s technological culture and its affect on aesthetic taste (and cerebral development). Is the 140-character limit Twitter all we have to say? Whereas Bowers worries about the macro state of reading and writing, I worry about being read at all. Sure, I post the occasional link on my Facebook page when an album is really fucking good, but familial support via social networking sites only goes so far.

It’s tough not to worry I’m the journalistic equivalent of a Pitchfork echo. What am I to offer other than further confirmation that Animal Collective reign over indie-rock, or that TV on the Radio are the celebrated post-Dubya era band, or that Joe Satriani is suing Coldplay? Hell, even further, how do I strive to not become a Pitchfork-related derivative while simultaneously lauding Deerhunter, Fucked Up or Okkervil River?

Attracting Readers

I’ve given great thought how to attract more readers to The Tripwire, particularly in the vein of new sections. But most of my suggestions were predicated on sensationalist or dumbed down journalism: giving a ranking system to our album reviews, offering 250-word controversial opinions that would at least “get people talking” or just writing trivial details on our favorite bands (you know, like, who Sufjan’s dating). Inevitably, the question comes down to site credibility and reputation. Do we want to be the Perez Hilton of music journalism? After all, Hipster Runoff is as nauseating as it is funny. Actually no, the question comes down to attracting a large and consistent reader-base. How do I get you to read our site more? Is it a matter of venerability?

mcranston: okay, so with the sites that don’t necessarily have the fortune of a “built-in audience,” how do they establish one?
derek: that’s the “game.” one is persistence. doing something well and doing it over time. the other, which is easier for sites that specifically post news (like us and Daily Swarm) is SEO-friendly titles and the kind I like to consider “yellow journalism” that help lure people in
derek: but yes, also having a unique angle like hipsterunoff
derek: oh, and social networing assets, but that’s a whole other conversation

I can only hope it’s venerability. After all, my blog created this past summer, In The Gnar, joined the landfills after just one entry (but what an entry it was).

Effable Solipsism

Can I talk my shit again?

I suppose it takes the most vain (and dubious) of solipsists to open a column with self-referential concerns. It’s very Klosteran-esque to be reviewing oneself in the first place, let alone with such scrutiny. But my considerations are not ill founded. I honestly don’t know if you’re reading his. I don’t receive feedback. I don’t know how many of you there even are.

mcranston: Puritan Blister by William Bowers of Pitchfork is one of the best columns I’ve read on a music website
mcranston: he’s wildly erudite. his prose is unique. he’s complicated. a very fascinating read,
mcranston: so why do you think his column isn’t a staple among p4k readers?
derek: you just answered it
derek: he’s wildly erudite. his prose is unique. he’s complicated.
derek: people want simple and easy to understand
derek: Filet Mignon is amazing, but more people eat MacDonalds
derek: I guess what I’m getting at is it’s so broad and generalized (his topic that is) that people don’t really understand what Puritan Blister is until you delve into it
derek: which is why it’s so great
mcranston: Yes.
mcranston: so with that in mind, what lessons do we take for this column here
mcranston: – simple idea?
derek: I think the answer is talking to these people who’s opinions we take as “experts”
derek: because that allows you/us to delve into these very broad and expansive topics under the veil of a very simple concept

Or maybe I need a change of scenery. Writing in Starbucks is too cliché, too rom-com-esque, too “You’ve Got Mail”-ish. I need to start smoking, and get a type-writer, and probably grow a better beard. I bet that’s how Pitchfork does it.

A month ago, we reported that Pitchfork founder Ryan Schreiber was nominated for the extremely prestigious Time 100 Most Influential People In the World list.

Calling Pitchfork the “Pravda of indie rock,” the Time pitch wrote of his website’s incredible influence over popular opinion. Despite the support of his indie brethren, Schreiber didn’t make the “Scientists and Thinkers” portion of the Time 100 list. Oh well, the competition was stiff as he lost out to neuroanatomists, computer-science researchers who invented multi-touch sensing screens, progressive business philanthropists, and other impossibly erudite folk.

Complete list available here.

“It’s very easy to identify ‘negative’ in change, but I want this record to showcase the positive aspects of change, and how things like getting older, or dying, or the end of civilization, or the end of a species isn’t a … bad thing.”

From any other artist, in practically any context, this quote would wreak of absurd neophytic existential posturing, but spoke by Dan Deacon in Pitchfork TV’s In The Studio piece about Bromst, why can’t he also challenge our traditional ideas of life and dying? After all, along what process did we associate getting older with the loss of youth? Why can’t getting older remeble the the explosive surge at roughly 0:58 on ““Get Older”“?

Yes, we know we might “obsessing” a bit, having already featured “Snookered”, “Paddling Ghost” and Get Older, compounded by Tripwire Editor Derek Evers’ “blowjob of a review”, but hey, we’re not the only ones:

The Onion A.V. Club: “Deacon has always said that he writes within his physical means (then: homemade equipment, sweltering clubs; now: actual studios, actual venues). A word of advice for anyone who crosses Dan’s path: Give this man anything he asks for.”

Pitchfork: “The music becomes something like a natural process: one clean, simple sweep, but built from an insane complexity of detail. And there’s enough to un-knot in there to make this a terrific step for Deacon — out from the sticky basements into a space where he can try to tackle the sublime.”

Tiny Mix Tapes: “The way Deacon transitioned from the format of his cartoon-y debut to the sparkling sidewalk-chalk innocence here is astonishing, comparable to the bump in quality and focus we all felt when Ágætis Byrjun proceeded Von or Person Pitch followed Young Prayer. It’s the hyper-distinguishable leap from idiosyncratic-but-lovable to just-plain-lovable that makes Bromst — and Danny Boy himself — of increased import.”

Bromst Is Awesome.

Dan Deacon tour dates
04.03.09 – Philadelphia, PA (First Unitarian Church)
04.04.09 – Baltimore, MD (TRANSMODERN FESTIVAL: H&H BUILDING)
04.05.09 – Williamsburg, VA (The Little Theater)
04.06.09 – Asheville, NC (Orange Peel)
04.07.09 – Knoxville, TN (Catalyst)
04.08.09 – Birmingham, AL (Bottletree)
04.09.09 – Athens, GA (88/cp)
04.10.09 – Atlanta, GA (Eyedrum)
04.11.09 – Tallahassee, FL (FSU/Club Downunder)
04.13.09 – New Orleans, LA (The Candle Factory/The Heavy)
04.15.09 – Baton Rouge, LA (Spanish Moon)
04.16.09 – Houston, TX (Orange Show)
04.17.09 – Austin, TX (Emos)
04.18.09 – Fort Worth, TX (Fort Worth Modern Art Museum)
04.20.09 – Tempe, AZ (The Clubhouse)
04.21.09 – San Diego, CA (Che Cafe)
04.22.09 – Los Angeles, CA (Troubadour)
04.23.09 – San Francisco, CA (Great American Music Hall)
04.24.09 – Portland, OR (Wonder Ballroom)
04.25.09 – Seattle, WA (The Vera Project)
04.26.09 – Vancouver, BC (Richards on Richards)
04.29.09 – Salt Lake City, UT (Kilby Court)
04.30.09 – Denver, CO (Bluebird Theater)
05.01.09 – Kansas City, MO (Pistol K.C.)
05.02.09 – Minneapolis, MN (Triple Rock Social Club)
05.04.09 – Madison, WI (Majestic Theatre)
05.05.09 – Milwaukee, WI (Turner Hall Ballroom)
05.06.09 – Urbana, IL (Canopy Club/Club Void)
05.07.09 – Chicago, IL (Metro)
05.08.09 – Mount Pleasant, MI (CMU / The Wesley Foundation)
05.09.09 – Detroit, MI (TBA)
05.10.09 – Toronto, ON (The Deleon White Gallery)
05.11.09 – Montreal, QC (La Sala Rossa)
05.12.09 – South Burlington, VT (HG Showcase Lounge)
05.13.09 – Cambridge, MA (Middle East Downstairs)
05.14.09 – Providence, RI (RISD Market Square)
05.15.09 – Brooklyn, NY (Danbro Studios)
05.16.09 – New York, NY (Bowery Ballroom)
05.17.09 – Washington, D.C. (9:30 Club)

Holy shit. Ryan Schreiber, founder of Pitchfork Media, has been nominated as a finalist for The Time 100 Most Influential People in the World. Alongside Vladimir Putin, Pope Benedict XVI, Robert Mugabe, Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh sits our very own indie compadre Mr. Schreiber. The article reads:

“His music-culture website Pitchfork is the Pravda of indie rock, steering opinion (and sales) with its infamously forthright record reviews; even its detractors can’t help but look at it three times a day. Among Pitchfork’s early finds: Arcade Fire, Interpol and Relevant Elephant.”

We always knew Wavves and Will Oldham were going to take over the world, we just didn’t know when. So it seems clear now, our cultural coup d’état is occurring with great fury! The zeitgeist of the 2009 will not be remembered for any sort of economic collapse, political strife or military engagements, but for the popularization of music freed from commercial interests and agendas! All Hail Bradford Cox!

But seriously, that’s awesome and great for Pitchfork. Here at the The Tripwire, we encourage write-in entries for our very own Derek Evers.

Today we have unveiled our review of the highly anticipated, much internet-sheriffed about new Animal Collective album Merriweather Post Pavilion. And like many of our contemporaries, we find it to be quite an enjoyable listen. But exactly one week into 2009 and it’s already being proclaimed the best record of the year, with some giving it higher praise than any release in all of 2008. And so I am left to wonder; am I the only one who isn’t even sure it’s the best record I’ve gotten in the last week, let alone all of this year and last?

To be certain, it is a beautiful record; one that I assigned to one of our more critical writers in the hopes that he would find something that didn’t sit well with him, only to be greeted with his overstated joy. And upon reading Flavorwire’s interview with Pitchfork editor Mark Richardson, I have a better understanding of why they chose to rate it so high. Yet earlier this week, when we simply stated that all the publications are elbowing their way to be the first to bow down to it, it elicited a comment of “don’t pretend like you’re not ready to bow down to this record as well. It’s fucking incredible and you know it.” Fair enough, but in an odd twist of irony, the commenter went on to add, “and please don’t turn into the next holier than thou Pitchfork snob website.”

That added jab became the incentive for this editorial, because it led me to hypothetically ask Chris (the name under which the comment was left), “if we — as music ‘journalists’ — are not to be critical of the music laid out before us, then who is?” I know the reason I started reading Pitchfork was not because they were critical and at times, demeaning, but because they had a definitive voice. One that you trusted, and would hope to give you insight that other, less confrontational sources like The Chicago Tribune, Paste Magazine, Spin were afraid to bring up. So does this speak more to Pitchfork watering down their content to fill a wider audience range, or — and the stance I take — that we as listeners and the music industry as a whole are looking so desperately for some reason, any reason, to believe that this year can be filled with a summery disposition like the one displayed on Merriweather Post Pavailion. That no matter what is to come in ‘09, it has to be better than last year?

It’s as though Animal Collective is the musical equivalent of Barack Obama. They don’t have to do anything extraordinary in order to save us from our daily doldrums. They just need to be. Sure, in the end Merriweather meets — or excedes — our expectations, but it doesn’t matter what it sounds like. It didn’t matter for the past three months when everyone was trying to get their hands on it, and the band and their label were successful (for the most part) at keeping it away from the masses, building the expectations even more. Maybe that’s what the anticipation was built upon. Maybe it’s not the band that we cared about or that we all were interested to hear what the album sounded like, but we wanted to be the first to say we’ve heard the record. To exclaim its amazingness before anyone else. I mean, The Tripwire is already really late in posting our review a mere three days after it’s vinyl release (note: not CD or digital yet).

Like Richardson explained in the Flavorwire interview, much of the excitement and anticipation comes from not knowing what Animal Collective will do next. The fact you cannot predict what sound they will embody from record to record is one of their biggest assets. As he goes on to say that while a lot of people will want to compare them to Radiohead because of the experimentation and departure from “conventional” pop-music, that “one thing with Radiohead, is that every album had at least a few tunes that could fairly be described as ‘rock songs.’ You could tell what all the instruments were, there are guitars, etc., but that’s not really true with [Merriweather Post Pavilion].”

The Radiohead comparisons are both justified and lofty praise for a band that used to wear masks. But in the end it doesn’t matter what Pitchfork, myself, yourself, or anyone thinks, because music is only as deep as the moment we are listening to it. Once it’s off and the criticism begins, it loses any value. So to answer Chris, I can only say that I will continue be that “holier than thou” opinionated asshole, because someone has to try and weed through the herd mentality. Even if the herd is right.

And in case Chris or anyone else is wondering, I think that Merriweather Post Pavilion is a wonderfully produced record. Possibly one of the best produced records of the last decade. And it’s the lush and sonic beauty of the production which makes it a better-than-good record. Still, the songwriting — in my humble opinion — is only average, with many of the songs sounding very similar, even repetitive and blending into one another at times. Maybe this is intentional, maybe it’s not, but as a whole it is not nearly as poppy as Strawberry Jam or innovative as Sung Tongs (still my favorite Animal Collective album to date). I will listen to it often and thoroughly many more times, but if I were to make any comparisons, it would be to another band’s monumental opus.

Merriweather Post Pavilion will inevitably be Animal Collective’s Pet Sounds. You will either think it’s the best thing they’ve ever done, or a record that will remain critically acclaimed and on your shelf while you reach for Strawberry Jam. Either way, it will forever be remembered. As for a number? I’ll give it a 7.5.

We know Pitchfork has a penchant for partnering up with reputable people, and the fact they like to only credit a few sources. So with conspiracy theories abound we’re asking ourselves this morning, why would NME lie about Pitchfork’s top ten records of 2008?

As we reported earlier in the week, The Daily Swarm’s Todd Roberts called out NME for posting what he called a “dubious” representation of Pitchfork’s top ten list in their aggregated year-end “super list”. Though no sources were cited, we assumed he was correct since he risked his journalistic integrity to tell us the list was “reportedly false.”

Well sure enough, today Pitchfork revealed their list and low and behold, their perennial poster child Deerhunter is not at the top of the list (they went with the popular bearded choice of 2008. No, the other one). So instead of asking ourselves why many of the best of lists we’ve seen are so incredibly myopic. And despite the fact that after we read these lists we’re left wondering if Fucked Up put out the only punk record and Lil Wayne the only hip-hop record. Or if we have to start looking elsewhere to find truly independent criticism. We’re asking why NME? Why?

Since we’re holding our breath to find out if Microcastle is, in fact, Pitchfork’s number one album of the year, we thought we’d give the lead single another spin.

Deerhunter – “Nothing Ever Happened”

Since these two websites could use a traffic boost, we thought we would help perpetrate this rumor.

Last Friday, NME presented their year-end best-of results as well as a “super-list” — an aggregate of many of the internet’s critical best-of lists. Despite the fact that all of the best-of lists presented were painfully similar making an aggregate pretty much unnecessary and equally unexciting, one list did draw some attention.

Included in the story was a run-down of Pitchfork’s top 10 records of the year (listed as their number one was “Best New Music” posterboy of the last two years, Deerhunter for Microcastle), but a quick peek at their site this week would tell you that their top 10 records of the year won’t be unveiled until this coming Friday the 19th. So is NME’s list for real?

Not according to The Daily Swarm’s Todd Roberts, who posted yesterday that the list is “reportedly false”. With no further information to go on, we’re left to wait until Friday. Or help push along the rumor until someone cracks.