Interesting

[firky]

Mickey Pearce's Ms Dynamite refix is more than rude enough and many of the working-class-dominated pirate scenes in London

Oh jesus.... I don't know if to feel pity, laugh or cry. Really it just reinforces why PFM is shit.

[badger]

hardly something new that the scene's stagnating is it? if anything i'd say it's getting better rather than worse with the played out half step sound finally having a decent alternative... even if that alternative is essentially a rehashing of styles done before and remoulded as "dubstep"

Who gives a shit what some faceless and not very good music journo thinks on a crap website?

what? the same faceless journo who produces, DJs, runs a record label and posts on this forum?

[dreamizm]

Who actually cares about critics anymore? For the first time we have sustained new and interesting music, without the constraints of labelling or a genre. As a producer/dj, I wish Martin Clark would recognise this.

You can sum up what is happening and has been happening since late 2009 as:

DJs > Journalists.

[knell]

I can't get over my bias towards Pitchfork, don't like their standard. Mass opinion generator..

yeah they catch some good tunes but it seems like their opinion turns into everyone's opinion.

I like how they think that they've heard every single tune out there, instead of realizing that there are some really good tunes in all genres swimming below the surface. If it doesn't have small sub-cultures jacking off to it then it doesn't exist to PF.

[Duffman]

even if that alternative is essentially a rehashing of styles done before and remoulded as "dubstep"

Isn't that essentially what all new genres are?

[hutyluty]

blackdown getting parred hard

[nowaysj]

Genres can serve a purpose, but as with any categorization they have pluses and minuses. The fact that people think skrillex is dubstep is actually making my life not as good. A proper genre classification, could help there, major plus to move bro's from my general proximity.

Overall though, genres are restrictive of artistic freedom and expression. People clamoring to forge genres out of dubstep's demise, it just looks self serving, and doesn't have any apparent upside for the music or artists.

Am not anti-critic. Critics can serve a very useful purpose, opening pieces to people that maybe couldn't access them, and generally expanding knowledge of music. But this article looks more like a rebranding effort, an attempt to (intellectually) recommoditize an artform. Personally think it is ugly.

[wormcode]

I liked when "electronic music" covered it all... never liked the term electronica though.

[blackdown]

Who gives a shit what some faceless and not very good music journo thinks on a crap website?

lol...

[blackdown]

Who actually cares about critics anymore? For the first time we have sustained new and interesting music, without the constraints of labelling or a genre. As a producer/dj, I wish Martin Clark would recognise this.

You can sum up what is happening and has been happening since late 2009 as:

DJs > Journalists.

if you did a little research you'd know I'm very much in favour of this pan/post genre style, as a journo, DJ and producer but felt it was important to explain the two sides of views on it in that piece.

Lot of hate for Pfork here, all I'd say is don't judge my column by the other content, I don't write to any pfork style nor do they influence the subjects of my columns.

[capo ultra]

People read too much into music and trends. Just shut the fuck up and listen to whatever music you want to listen too.

Who the fuck writes this bollocks, more importantly...who the fuck reads it?

Who gives a shit what some faceless and not very good music journo thinks on a crap website?

err as already stated this article was by Blackdown who has done a lot, is a good very journalist, and is certainly not faceless

----------

edit: wrote this before I seen Martin's replies above, will leave this here regardless

[secret door]

Who gives a shit what some faceless and not very good music journo thinks on a crap website?

Seriously! They sound like a pretentious teenager.

[garethom]

Who gives a shit what some faceless and not very good music journo thinks on a crap website?

Seriously! They sound like a pretentious teenager.

Honestly think that? To me, just sounded like he was summing up what a lot of people (including members of this forum) are talking about, and by commenting on what people are talking about, isn't that a columnist's objective?

[bassgirl121]

[belalala]

i for one found this to be very well written, if a bit long-winded (though given the 5+ page threads that emerge on DSF when someone starts talking about the evolution of the genre, there is certainly a lot to say).

really sucks to see journalism get slagged off by so many of you. where music journalism goes wrong is when it crosses the line from subjective perception shared with readers to objective authority determining public opinion. note that both sides of journalistic output--both the writers/editors and readers--are guilty of perceiving or acting one way or the other. while pitchfork often seems to be guilty of the latter, i don't think blackdown crossed any lines here, and tbh i don't think i (or many others on DSF) would be able to sum up such contested ideas about the music that i love as well as he did.

big up blackdown.

[Genevieve]

Who gives a shit what some faceless and not very good music journo thinks on a crap website?

Who gives a shit what some faceless and not-even-music-journo thinks on some message board?

Can't we just discuss the point for whatever it is, disregarding the site it's posted on and who wrote it?

Essentially, what I got out of the article is that the London underground largely transcended what we would call 'genres' and it's all a mishmash of influences and styles. That it's more about music and less about the sub-culture surrounding it. Less tied down by bpm or rhythmic conventions (that largely define EDM genres) and more by geographic location and scene. (Personal observation: that's remiscent of the way it works in rock music)

Judging from my experience at the Amsterdam DMZ, I totally agree.

I don't care that it's on Pitchfork. Music publications I like can release awful articles and music publications I dislike can release good ones.

i for one found this to be very well written, if a bit long-winded

Word, agreed. It's quite easy to paraphrase the jist of it with just a number of sentences.

yeah they catch some good tunes but it seems like their opinion turns into everyone's opinion.

Which is something you can't blame Pitchfork for.... (I know you're not saying that, though, but I definitely wanna emphasize it)

[belalala]

right, like i said, both publication staff and readers are guilty of letting music journalists act as some kind of otherworldly authority. pitchfork is the most obvious example.

[pompende]

this thread is fucking embarrassing

I can't get over my bias towards Pitchfork, don't like their standard. Mass opinion generator..

i totally agree. and i strongly dislike most music criticism.

a couple of clarifications tho:
1. this isn't a record review, and doesn't attempt to "rate" or ascribe absolute value to any piece or set of music. The author makes a clear attempt to keep this article descriptive rather than prescriptive (altho "screaming infantile synth-fits" is pretty damn cheeky).

2. its written by fucking blackdown. he's not a music critic but a dj/producer who also enjoys writing and has been writing this column for something like six years.

additionally the OP asks if we agree with this article... yet there is no argument made in this article. it's a summary and exploration of diverging opinions, none of which are given precedence.
so is the question whether you think martin clark actually lives in london and plays on rinse and goes out to club nights?

So who's right? Unsatisfyingly, both camps have a strong case, but I'd strongly urge anyone to avoid writing this entire space off on ideological grounds unless you've first listened and danced to some of its finest proponents. Preferably somewhere quite loud.

[knell]

Honestly though, i don't understand music reviews/journalism in general... who honestly thinks that some people have a better objective view of a song/album's quality as opposed to random people on the street?

People have been telling me that Bon Dylan and the Beatles have written the best songs of all time, when I disagree.. who's right/wrong?

Can a journalist write an article that includes every perspective of a piece of music? Do they write from the perspective of every socio-economic standpoint? Every point of intoxication? Do they take into account a person's mindset when they hear a certain genre? If they've been abused? Whether they like the color blue?

Really, why should I listen to one persons opinion over another just because it's more readily available? That goes for anything, not just music.


This is a rant against most music opinion pieces, not the arbitrary summary in question in the OP.

[AllNightDayDream]

No one is claiming an objective view. Why people are slagging music journalism is beyond me. Most of us know how incredibly ignorant and misguided some other articles on the subject have been, but now when someone just lays it out in a neutral fashion so that you can make your own judgments, it's somehow pretentious?

However, I didn't like this part

This is not one genre. However, given the links, interaction, and free-flowing ideas between different waters of this archipelago of creativity, you can't dismiss all these acts as unrelated, solitary individuals either

Because really it is just a bunch of very individual artists feeding off of each other's creativity. A genre exists to put things in a box, and that goes entirely against what the music is telling us.