So much of the anti-”hipster” humor I see is just so weak! I, of all people, would love for someone awesome to rise up and write a really funny and scathing critique of this particular culture, but so often it’s either rooted in stereotypes that are years and years old, or it’s so obviously written from a personal “everyone but me sucks” perspective that it becomes completely incoherent, thanks to “I’m cool but wait you’re not” rhetoric like the examples pulled out by other commenters. Does that mean it’s impossible since it’s so sprawling? Maybe!

(also willhackney is otm but shh, everyone likes arguing)

“Are we meant to believe that the cultural import for the last ten years of music should be found best in homecoming dances and THE MIX one-oh-whatever radio stations? A trip to the goddamn prom? Is that where hip independent music is finding its zenith? Does that mean overly-saturated, obnoxious, retarded-shade-wearing, major label, unit-moving, HIT MAKERS are the new indie? I’m not sure if that’s more legitimate than the old indie or not, but it’s definitely as wack as your Kid A review.”

So this guy hates popular music, LCD Soundsystem, AND Radiohead? His anger over major labels, hit makers and other strawmen peg him as the kind of guy who breaks into tears when subscription inserts fall out of a magazine.

I’ll be over here, enjoying my life and stepping in the name of love.

Also, if you think “B.O.B.” is a 7, not a 10, YOU need to explain that. Not Pitchfork.

but one thing i won’t do is applaud buddyhead’s shitheaded bear-baiting. it doesn’t take a genius to see the flaws in pitchfork’s list. i don’t need to stoop that low to find common ground.

of course we all know what a hipster is. the problem is that you’re just as likely to find someone who matches that definition applauding buddyhead’s sub-junior high rage as you are listening to animal collective or awkwardly dancing to mainstream hip-hop. it’s a nebulous, worthless definition that has more to do with the glasses someone is wearing than the music they like. “hipster” can represent anything you want it to. when you’re crucifying the same cultural phenomenon for A.) liking Jesu, but not getting the deep current of influence Justin Broadrick has had on metal, B.) “ironically” enjoying Beyonce and C.) liking “bands no one has heard of” just to be “elitist” then you haven’t really defined anything at all.

The Pitchfork list sucked because it lacked context and it inaccurately profiled the decade. There was no explanation on how the list was selected or what “Top” meant. Subjective is fine for individual folks, but we’re talking about one of the supposed pillars of music journalism for our time.

And why make the distinction of “Top Tracks” when you’re going to put a Wolf Eyes track on the list? Was I not at the meeting when this one particular Wolf Eyes track was deemed the consensus hit that everyone adores? Completely arbitrary. The list read like someone laying out specific CDs on their coffee table before guests arrive. “Look at us and what we like and be impressed by our calculated contrarianism!”

The list is also very biased towards the East Coast and UK, but I suppose Pitchfork is as well.

The Buddyhead article might be reactionary, but it might be necessary too. We’re in a depressing musical drought right now and someone has to start kicking back against the bland, soft-rock and progressive wanking that is feted as genius these days. The list just wasn’t that exciting.

And “B.O.B.” isn’t amazing, it’s a 7, not a 10.

“You wanna argue that the Duke Spirit is better than Outkast, go right ahead, but what’s the fucking point?”

Anyway, Kisskraft, you’re making a pure subjective call with saying JT > R Kelly. And it’s totally beside the point – this buddyhead article kinda f**king blows. At no point does it explain why BOB isn’t amazing (“white guilt” isn’t a reason).

“Well, ultimately taste is always in the eye of the beholder, but amongst aficionados I tend to assume that the distinctions between the good and bad are fairly clear cut (Michael Jackson vs. (and sorry for the double dip) Rick Astley?) One is obviously better than the other, no?”
-Um, yeah, and there is a fair consensus that despite his flaws and missteps, R. Kelly has made some great music. Same goes for JT and, at least for one song, Kelly Clarkson.

I feel like you’re a “JT-loving hipster” calling out “Kelly Clarkson-loving hipsters.” They’re both bubblegum that pitchfork happens to like. What does that have to do with Maura’s calling-out of hipster haters?

I think the point is that hipsters suck, but people who hate hipsters actually are hipsters, and in fact we’re ALL hipsters or non-hipsters or hey guess what it doesn’t matter let’s just talk about the music we like. I don’t want to be labeled because I happen to love Outkast or “since u been gone.” F**k labels.

spot-on with Wesley Willis, may he rest in peace.

But, yeah, if you like R. Kelly, you are somehow enthralled with the spectacular insanity of a hack or you enjoy warmed-over, banal, lowest common denominator R&B music. No other explanation. But, both are surely valid reasons to like his music.

@iantenna: I’d never argue that Kells is any kind of sane, in fact I believe he needs to be in jail. But that’s irrelevant to the question of whether he has talent, and whether he’s produced good songs. Of course he’s produced plenty of schlock (don’t try to tell me that Justin, and N’Sync, have made all classics), but his phrasing is fantastic and he has challenged the limits of R&B. If “Ignition (Remix)” or “I’m a Flirt” don’t make you move your ass, then nothing will.

I can’t believe I’m spending all this time defending Kells. Where’s Kelefa Sannah when you need him?

According to him, we should all be listening to Johnny Cash?!