“We need them to be ‘considered good/relevant’ so that we can be ‘considered good/relevant.’ Now that they have ‘made it’, webzines/blogs/pitchforks can pat themselves on the back because this is our child. We raised them. We pulled them from the womb of the obscurity, raised them, fed them, nourished them, created them, loved them, used them, experienced them, grown with them, and now they have grown to have an alledged impact on modern society.” Hipster Runoff discusses how the praised-to-the-skies psych outfit Animal Collective “is a band created by/for/on the Internet,” and it’s probably one of the better deconstructions of that band’s hothouse popularity that I’ve read yet. [Hipster Runoff]
Categories:
Uncategorized
Uncategorized
@westartedthis: Amen. The band didn’t just come out of nowhere. I remember Avey Tare and Panda Bear records at college radio in the early 90s.
@Lucas Jensen: Crap. I meant the early 00s. Wow. I’ve been working in/with college radio for too long.
I was about to say, the early 90s? My memory ain’t that bad!
“…so there’s a Guadalcanal Diary album and there’s this Nirvana band people keep talking about and hmm, Panda Bear? What, is this a C86 band?”
Ned, don’t you remember Panda Bear opening for the Sugarplastic at No Life Records? shuh.
Between HRO lately and that 33 1/3 Celine Dion book, this January has been full of massive truth bombs in the weirdest places. Hopefully this will continue.
I saw AC once live and hated it, and I hate their records. Much like Broken Social Scene, the boundless critical acclaim didn’t create my dislike for them, but sure as hell amplifies it.