Why is corny and contrived mallgoth kitsch suddenly all the rage with "respectable and sophisticated" music critics and listeners?
Chelsea Wolfe, Savages, Iceage, Cult Of Youth, Zola Jesus etc. This is music for angsty 16-year old girls, so what's the deal?
I'm not talking about Wire magazine-type sophistication, more about the almost unanimous critical acclaim all of those artists have received from publications which actually hold a good degree of sway among "hipper", more fashionable listeners(as opposed to trashier publications like Kerrang or whatever).
(can't wake up)
Eh, I suppose her new album's shed the mallgoth shit for a more generic sparse pop sound(I could be wrong though, only heard the few singles) but everything preceding that was comically pompous "dark and mysterious" pseud goth pop.
>grow up faggot
Watch your mouth.
imo it's because
living a comfortable life while being edgy
your "mallgoth kitsch" is probably just a niche of subcultures that people express their comfortable edge through
nah, it's all vapid shite, all sound and no substance, only good as background tunes and even then i'd rather listen to dub techno or some shit desu
i remember thinking that her acoustic album maybe could have been good since i imagined it would just be guitar and voice but nah, even that turd was drenched in effects
i remember seeing chelsea wolfe's photos a lot on pitchfork and shit and just figuring she was some quirky indie rock artist who got off on looking like a ridiculous goth caricature
i could just not imagine these types of sites peddling music that was also a ridiculous goth caricature(at least i could not imagine it at the time in the early 2010s), so imagine my surprise when i actually heard chelsea wolfe for the first time
really lame stuff
she'd probably be really interesting to fuck though, no denying that
Agreed. I wanna suck a turd from her ass. I think people give her a bit too much shit. It all stems from the new album. But whatever. If you enjoy an artists music, listen to it. If not, don't. It's by all means fine to discuss an artist, and dislike one, but just picking a group of artist, calling them mallgoth, and saying everything they do sucks is pretty douchey.
>I don't think anyone makes dark music without a sense of self awareness these days.
Go read any interviews with Chelsea Wolfe, Sean Ragon or Elias Ronnenfelt and then try saying the same thing.
Savages had a fucking manifesto printed out on their album cover.
It's pretty clearly tongue in cheek for Chelsea Wolfe. She uses the whole dark thing as a kind of aesthetic for the music. She mentioned in an interview the whole "goth" thing was a show and she doesn't dress in all black n all that outside of her photoshoots/live shit.
She's definitely conscious of the cheesy nature of it all. I feel like she gets way too much shit, especially for the new album. Back in the day she was doing some pretty fuckin unique stuff musically. She has changed a bit musically and it's admittedly less unique but shes still a wonderful artist. Too many people see the "edgy" darkness of the music and use that as a way to discredit it.
Dunno, pretty much all pop music (as opposed to "art" music) is juvenile in some way or another. You're just changing one type of kitch to another when the inevitable annual trend change comes. What's hip today is dated and embarrassing a couple of years later. I've no idea why anyone would even want to be acclaimed among this type of people, they're doomed to irrelevancy in a very short amount of time. And I'm not saying that pop music is bad, just that it's very rarely that smart and that the way the trends change is ridiculous.
But it's true that most music journalists aren't musically educated which is why they don't actually write about the song material that much in their reviews but the politics, aesthetics, sense of novelty and such found on the record. Interviews are the worst, they're pretty much never about the songs and always about the musician and his life. I'm not saying that I'm very educated about music but it's obvious that pop music journalism is written and read by people who know very little about music.
Well, I like Simple Death just because of how cheesy and over the top it is, but I still don't think her new album is as good as her older ones.
The point is that she enjoys making dark music, and if you do that sort of thing you should have an image that matches.
Of course it's cheesy. The new album is definitely inferior to the older ones, but it's by no means bad. You definitely must match your image to what you play. Best Coast or whatever couldn't go out on stage in druid robes with a fog machine running behind them. Or maybe they could lol who knows.
I don't think any of the artists he mentioned are considered pop by anyone. You must also remember it isn't an artist's decision to become critically acclaimed among those types. This is pretty obvious, but I honestly think people should just form their own opinions and avoid music critics altogether. That being said, it is also good to see another perspective of something. But still, what you enjoy should be of no concern to others, and you should not be concerned of what others think of what you enjoy.
I just used the word pop to mean non-academic/art music, the music that publications like Pitchfork generally write about. Obviously not all of is of the pop genre. You right about lots of artists probably not having much a say about where they'll get hyped and where they'll get their audience, especially if they get huge enough to be relevant to big American indie sites. All the more reason to not read the reviews though, I think. Unfortunately these sites probably do have an influence on what sells and what doesn't, but the world isn't fair. The quickly changing trends might even cause people leave Pitchfork etc too.
What you said about forming your own opinions is of course right. I think that there could be good music journalism but right now the vast majority of music reviews don't really even tell much about the music on the recording, even if they write about it it's usually vague and superficial.
The thing about her music is that while it's cheesy, it's not entirely lacking in authenticity.
Many musicians do write about their genuine feelings, there isn't much of a point towards investing time in art without sincerity. All this is not without self-reflection, especially when it comes to "goth" music, which without any sort of self-awareness, humor, and melodramatic theatrics is frivolous.
No, you are definitely right. But I don't believe that makes her a bad artist. I think it's a bit heretical when someone likes say Death Grips, but goes out of their way to call someone like Chelsea Wolfe edgy (not saying you do this or whatever. Just an example). It's like you said, if the music isn't sincere to some degree, then its pretty much pointless. I don't consider Chelsea Wolfe "goth" but i can see why people would. When I think goth, i think more like Siouxsie and the Banshees n shit. A lot of people (here at least) seem to toss "goth" around as a way to undermine an artist and it's pretty silly imo.
I would love to see more journalism focused on the musical steps an artist takes. As a musician and songwriter myself it would be interesting to see how artists I enjoy go about doing what they do. Not only that, but just more about their music itself. But, of course, interviews are typically for the wider audience, which pretty much is just after the artists personality or aesthetic.
I was waiting for this to come up, since I was more or less thinking of it with my posts.
His whole point with that video was that goth is supposed to be a genre that is beyond reproach for being completely cannibalized because people who grew up through the 1990s-2000s had to deal with mallgoth music being pandered to them as teens until it was beaten to death.
Yeah, me too.
Top Tier Waifu.
Back off shes mine goddammit
because it's easier to make harsh noise than melodic, harmonic counterpoint. it's easier to wear all black than to employ colors in one's wardrobe. it's easier to put on a sad face and pretend to mope than to extend one's self into another person's life in a compassionate way.
it's easier to write about this music scene than to seek out microscenes and local subcultures. it's easier than grappling with music that has political undertones, that has violence or a disturbing legacy.
it's also easier to use dark, depressing aesthetics to make 16 year old special snowflakes feel "kvlt" and "spoopy." it's easier to be a mope than to be happy.
it's simply easier, that's all. it's bred out of laziness.
>it's easier to make harsh noise than melodic, harmonic counterpoint.
You really think this, don't you?
It's much more difficult to make dissonant music than melodic music, and I'm not talking about harsh noise, I'm talking about the sorts of chords or technical playing required to make it, especially if you're someone who learned melodic music first.