Features | Articles
The CMG Hatebag, Vol. 2
By The Staff | 2 June 2008
Dear Readers,
Oh those late nights, hunched over our keyboards in paralysing contempt, unable to control our fingers, hitting “Send” and damning our words to eternal searing of each other’s Inbox. Or at least until we delete it or let it get covered up in hundreds of spam mails for Erectile Dysfunction treatment (because we haven’t had any lives outside of our tumultuous relationship with you). We both know we’ll regret saying these things in the morning.
At first our relationship was full of hope and promises for the future. You had gotten over your skepticism that we were merely another blog and fawned over our succinct, often wry and sarcastic analysis. You wanted someone who didn’t just drool over whatever happened to be the most recent high-profile dancepunk album (this was 2003, mind), and we wanted someone who wasn’t going to take our opinion as some kind of pseudo-authority. We didn’t mind that you wanted to visit other websites and blogs once in awhile. Hell, we did it ourselves sometimes.
Then things started to get out of control. The reviews started getting lengthier, full of references to American Idol, Foucault, and our own fecal matter, sometimes within the same sentence. Concept reviews abounded, though it wasn’t always clear what the concept was. Last year was when you first started to suggest our differences couldn’t be reconciled: you despaired that we dismissed Modest Mouse, M.I.A., LCD Soundsystem, and Okkervil River, and interpreted our love for Spoon, Panda Bear, and Battles as pathetic attempts to save our already dying relationship.
So let’s call a truce to these knee-jerk e-mails. Give us a call. Come by our house sometime. We’ll make you a mix tape. Nothing avant-garde, we promise.
Love always,
The CMG Staff
*****
you’re so pretentious that you’re product, and not opinion. and your talk is cheap, very.
i hate you
*****
you guys are kidding with this site right? i used to follow the site before all these hipsters got their hands on Reason and decided they should be heard, but now I don’t follow you. it’s like april fools day every day on yours and the likes of pitchfork and tinymixtapes. i’m wondering if you’re all sabotaging the concept of music review sites and just raping these kids’ minds for dollars. which i’d support. there’s so much frivolous shit floating around the internet lately it’s impossible to sort through it and find decent music without trying really really hard. so nowadays i just listen to the reccommendations of my friends. alright, back to work…
******
does CMG even review albums anymore!?
Or is that not avant-garde and cool enough? It’s virtually worthless to visit CMG with any hope of learning anything substanceful about an album. It’s great if you’re into reading unintelligible drivel written by a bunch of people who could be good writers if they weren’t trying to one-up Pitchfork in terms of smug hipsterism (at least Pitchfork can deliver a straight review every once in awhile), but for people who actually care about the music… not so great. I can just see the two dullards who wrote today’s “review” of the new Portishead album patting each other on the back over how “clever” they are, when in reality all they did was deliver an utterly painful reading experience.
I wouldn’t have bothered sending you a mocking e-mail about what CMG has become, but it used to be one of my favorite websites.
*****
re: Raconteurs :: Consolers of the Lonely
dude! just read your review of the Raconteurs Consolers of the Lonely. You managed to be totally offensive while giving your opinion! How do i get your job? (See below – i can do the same thing as you!)
in all seriousness – that was a real horseshit review bro. Who knows, maybe you don’t like rock music but if thats true then honestly you should give up your job to someone who can listen to music and then actually produce something worthwhile to say about it. I feel bad for any kids that have bypassed this album based on your shitty (poorly written) review – not that anyone gives two shits about what rock critics think, but still – music critics should have to submit their reviews to the masses so we are allowed to review your review before it is forever posted out on the web. Actually, it being the year 2008, many review sites have a comments section so the user community can actually tell you how much they think you suck dick and have it be publicly viewable so people can decide for themselves just how much of a jackoff the reviewer really is. Luckily, in this case – no mass swell of user feedback is necessary to establish very quickly that you don’t know what you are talking about. This makes me pity you Dom. For there is a whole wide world of amazing music out there, but you seem too busy trashing it to get to enjoy it like the rest of us. Then again, you rated the Lil Wayne album pretty favorably so maybe you just flat out suck.
LOL...thanks Dom, this has been a fun little break from work, and for the past few minutes i have even allowed myself to feel as high and mighty and you mistakenly believe yourself to be. Maybe i should try being a music critic and then i can talk out of my ass all day everyday and get paid for it. You are really on to something Dom. (But hey while you busy trashing works of art, why don’t you post some of your own tunes up on the net so us, your loyal readers can give you our feedback – ya know, make suggestions, tell you that you are a waste of time, coporate sell out, or that you just flat out suck.)
All that being said, i will reverently ask to borrow two words out of the extensive, scholarly vocabulary you displayed in your review, and i would like to apply them to my feelings toward you and your review:
FUCK THAT
Anyway…Thanks Dom, for always and forever being the scum of the Earth.
Word.
*****
re: Radiohead:: In Rainbows / Radiohead:: In Rainbows
For hours upon hours I had been listening to the new Foo Fighters and Radiohead CDs back to back, desperately trying to decide which was better. But then I emembered, “Of course! Cokemachineglow will give me the straight dope on these albums!” And let me tell ya, reading the reviews helped me out immensely. For a brief moment before I read your reviews I thought that maybe In Rainbows was superior because it was produced by an infintely better band and was jaw-droppingly beautiful… I kid you not, these silly thoughts lingered in my mind, albeit for just a brief moment—thank god I got to your website before my good taste and superior intellect butted in! You guys are so cutting edge. You give albums that were applauded by Pitchfork bad reviews. Look out world! Cokemachineglow has got something to say! But seriously, thanks again for the kickass reviews. I thought your expertise couldn’t be topped when one of your writers talked about how they didn’t “get” Soft Bulletin, or that other time when I learned that The Breeders’ cover of Happiness is a Warm Gun is superior to the original… but no, I had yet to see your piece de resistance… the definitive review of In Rainbows. I think every copy of that album should come with a warning label with that entire review for all to read before they accidentally love that piece of shit of an album. Job. Well. Done.
*****
No update for weeks and now there are both positive and negative reviews of In Rainbows? And, the positive one rips Hail to the Thief? weak. i’m afraid i’ll have to remove the site from my favorites. cancel christmas
*****
Subject: stop writing music reviews
you are a girl.
*****
re: Radiohead:: In Rainbows / Radiohead:: In Rainbows
You knew you were gonna get hate mail for this, right? I’m going to do my best not to be really judgmental about the review, and resist the temptation of asking “did you even try to listen?”
The issue here is expectation. And I’m not even talking about the 4-5 year expectation thing. I mean what RH is expected to be – a band that diguises beautiful songs under layers of complexity. Which is fine. But they did that. A lot.
This is a sensual album. I’m fascinated by yours and the other review’s fixation on the idea that Yorke & co. wanted to make a record for fucking. Especially considering that they said the same thing before HTTT. And Amnesiac. It’s an attempt to incorporate the reigning ideas behind Kid A in a new context: not electronics, but songcraft. Like Kid A, it employs long drone grooves (and I swear if someone says “glitchy bleeps” again, that vacuous phrase, I’ll snap) and focuses on instrumental interplay. If you need an example, pay attention to the evolution, battle, and resolution between Phil Selway and the beat machines in 15 Step. It’s an attempt at that Kid A attention to detail and consicsion with traditional instrumentation. Which, when you think about it, they haven’t done before.
You claim the lyrics are too U2 lite, yet the lyric you’re jonesing for: “She stands stark naked and she beckons you to bed / Don’t go, you’ll only want to come back again” – was and still is the most achtung baby / trying to throw your arms around the world line Yorke’s ever sang. Since WHEN does Chris Martin tell his audience that they’ll burn in hell for what their dirty minds are thinking? So the lyrics aren’t pulled out of a hat like Burroughs or politically charged like HTTT. Get over yourself.
You want a Radiohead that stopped existing. We all applauded their big electronic thing, even though their references weren’t the most cutting edge, and now instead of saying “fleetwood mac? no way!” you’re saying “where’s the animal collective.”
You (excuse the second person, it’s 130 and I’m shocked) already knew what you wanted, and stopped listening when it wasn’t. Of course Nude and All I Need worked for you, because you’d need to be a deaf zombie not to hear it. But if you think the point of 15 Step is the programming, then you missed the boat. If you think that Arpeggi and reckoner use the same guitar picking then all notes are created equal. And if you think the bass on All I need is wickedly syncopated, then you’ve got it confused with Nude.
Really? So videotape is like pyramid song because it uses piano? because the time signatures are utterly different, as is the tonality, and the build and band inclusions are totally opposite.
Maybe RH’s audience needs flashing signs to say “HEY LISTEN TO THE GUITAR TRACKING AND BINURALITY IN BODYSNATCHERS.” But the band is working with softer colors in a more broad spectrum.
And not to be a total jerk, but it’s kind of apparent that other reviews have been read and incorporated into this review, as is the whim of all internet music writers, I guess. This is, so sadly, the first set of reviews that I’ve read on CMG that have me 100% disappointed. It is as though you didn’t even bother to listen. Even the other review didn’t really get it either. All I Need is the new stalker song. Arpeggi is the best concrete shoes song I’ve ever heard. Bodysnatchers is what “My Body is a Cage” should have been going after. Oh and we only have half the album. What to do about THAT.
I hope this made some sense in my delerium. I’m just utterly flabbergasted. I am a Radiohead fan, but I’m far from a fan boy. Seems this review is all about negation too, isn’t it?
I would rather like to discuss this with y’all. I really don’t mean to come off hard, but I can’t imagine how you arrived at that review.
And I’d just like to say that, contrary to popular belief, tracks 10-12 on OKC sound way too much a like to by throwing shit at IR.
So, in summation. really? did you even try to drop your shit at the door?
*****
re: Akron/Family :: Love is Simple
Thumbs down on the Akron/Family review…I feel that it’s a well crafted, intricate record celebrating the love we take for granted (the regular human kind). Maybe it’s not depressing enough for your tastes. I love your site because it’s a fair balance between the other-site-that-shall-not-be-named, but lately you’re down on everything. Shit. Feel the love already.
Rebuttal: Akron/Family are the Flava Flav’s clock of music fandom.
*****
Pt. 1
In your review of 50 Cent’s Curtis you said, “Somehow, the kids stopped caring about me. Jeezy kinda stole my thunder, and then T.I. stole his thunder while being good at rapping.” That statement alone proves you don’t know shit about rap. T.I. was already breaking ground with I’m Serious before Trap Muzik and Urban Legend solidified him into a more mainstream rapper/pop star. Nevertheless, it was the true fans like me that understood that and we know that Jeezy never came before T.I. You can’t even fit that into the southern rap equation. Jeezy is not even on T.I.‘s level nor will he claim to be or claim to have broken into the industry first. I understand your review of 50 Cent’s album was in jest, but I think the entire CMG staff needs to do its research and make educated and positive statements about music and musicians before writing complete bullshit…and that should transcend all genres including rap.
Rebuttal: I was just gonna respond in character as an asshole, because I find your anger kind of ridiculous, but you seem like a cogent thinker, so here goes. You’re analyzing a throwaway sentence in a deeply satirical review and deducing I don’t know shit about rap. That shit’s just silly, first off. Second, I figure the timeline of “most popular rapper” for the aughts goes Jay-Z (Blueprint —> Black Album, 2001-2003), 50 Cent (Get Rich or Die Trying —> The Massacre, 2003-2005), Jeezy (Thug Motivation, 2005), Tip (King, 2006 – present). Some might throw Kanye in there, but I dunno about that dude. Was T.I. releasing fantastic singles before King came out? Sure — but he was not the biggest figure in rap. In my review, which, again, takes place inside a caricature of 50 Cent’s head, all that matters is what’s most popular. King was T.I.‘s coronation after a string of strong work, and I welcomed him with open arms; I fucking hated Thug Motivation 101. But Fiddy only cares about what the kids were flipping about — what was selling the most records, fuck the “true fans” — and if that’s the case Jeezy was most definitely top dog for a year before T.I. took the reins.
Not sure what you’re getting all worked up about, man. I’ve probably got 30+ other rap reviews on the site, none of which were written as a character who’s supposed to be an idiot, that might not qualify as bullshit. Then again, what do I know.
Pt. 2
Once again…I spot a tiny flaw in your argument. You said that for about a year Jeezy was the top dog before T.I. took the reins. Thats biased. Some would argue that T.I never lost the reins and was simply in between albums. Hence, giving a rapper like Jeezy time to capitalize on the absence of the self proclaimed “King” (a title which I’d dispute). Saying that to certain T.I fans is like saying oh well Radiohead is working on their next album now, but honestly Arcade Fire has taken over anyway and they’re the groundbreaking band of the year. Radiohead never lost the reins or the respect that they achieved after years of creating innovative albums. Music is not like international relations and war. Countries may lose dominance and esteem after losing a major war, but a good artist never leaves the table and is always respected for their artistic input. With that being said…I thought you wrote a good article. However, I don’t like the current creative direction of CMG and was perched (like an asshole) and ready to attack any reviewer that made an obvious uninformed statement. But I’m done now.
*****
re: Liars :: Liars
well, dom, you seem to be struggling with your identity as a music critic. Then again, maybe you have just lost total track of why you’re supposed to dig this shit called indie rock. i got turned on to you guys a while back and used to read you for serious criticism. Now, its “i-wonder-how-they-are-gonna-explain-why-this-sucks-when-i-know-goddam-well-it-doesn’t.”
The evidence:
Liars’ new record. to quote you “ i’m all for them continuing in the fuck-you vein of doing what they want and when, BUT SHIT, I would have imagined they’d have gotten what they wanted by now.” So, no, you’re not all for them continuing to not give a shit what YOU think, then. (I think that last sentence was clumsy enough to be in a CMG review.)
I think what you’re trying to say is you want Liars to do whatever they want as long as its what you want them to do. Its a disease that’s spreading, this knee-jerk dismissal of indie music’s diehards. I don’t know that anyone at your site even gives a fuck anymore. M.I.A., Caribou, Okkervil River, Arctic Monkeys (even), Bjork, etc. All told to fuck off.
You do sometimes come up with a big save: Jim White, Battles, Of Montreal. Those are few. Judging from the Spoon review, CMG’s reviews are being questioned by more than a few once interested persons.
I imagine you get sick of comparisons to pitchfork, but Jesus, good, bad, or ugly they seem to give a shit. They aren’t always right, but brother, y’all ain’t never right. Even when, as in the Spoon review, you all do get it right, its more about hating the haters than the music. Find your fucking souls, guys.
Oh well, if this doesn’t work out, there’s always Rolling Stone.
*****
re: MIA :: Kala
Get rid of peter harvey or whoever wrote the shitty MIA review, I personally am “really getting worked up about “The Turn” or “World Town”, with both probably being one of the best tracks on the album. I also love the other 5 or so tracks he managed to slag off for “not making any sense”, being “really bad”, “lacking focus” and being “too skittish”(??). Congratulate him on losing cokemachineglow a bucketload of cred with his shitty review. I tried to send this directly to mr. harvey himself but his mailbox appears to be filled with what i can only imagine to be similar responses to his crappy review.
*****
Holy shit, do you guys still write about music? I just can’t tell. I think, mostly, you write about yourselves (and yes, good music criticism reflects how people relate to and internalize music. But goddamnit, there’s a balance to be found!).
Sub-question: Do you guys like music anymore? It seems like anytime I click on the review for a record I’m actually interested in learning about, the answer is a big, fat, resounding ‘no.’
Of course, the more you guys like a record, the longer it takes me to get to the part where you (if at all) start to write about the actual music, so maybe it’s for the better.
I criticize because I care, of course; your website used to be daily required reading for me. I honestly can’t remember the last time I’ve read your site and enjoyed it. Maybe sometime in 2007.
Finally, suggestion: fewer reviews, more features/interviews.
*****
re: Titus Andronicus :: The Airing of Grievances
Pt. 1
I haven’t heard the record so obviously I can’t complain about the rating. But please take a look at that first paragraph and tell me that’s been approved by an editor. “Doting” is completely misused (the shoes can be the subject of doting — they cannot dote); “whoring” I’d say is only partially misused, as it communicates the intended nastiness, but it clearly gives the band too much credit. Generally, you need to have it to whore it. Not to mention the mixing of metaphors: a din becomes a flag — not just any flag, but a flag of anthems. In a different context it might make a poetical sense. “All of which is a pretty neat idea” — anyone who can make it out of those knots larynx intact
Needless to say I got no further than the first graph.
You might be asking yourself — why is this guy complaining about a band you clearly don’t care about? Well, I clicked on the review because I was wondering if it was another late-to-do bashing of something Pitchfork enjoyed (frankly their review sounded as unappealing as yours). It’s just annoying. Just don’t even review it. Don’t waste the time. Who cares about some bullshit on Troubleman Unlimited anyway. The site’s gotten so jaded recently it’s a drag to read.
Also — reviews in the forms of plays were never a good idea.
Rebuttal: Speakers are not sneakers, and while it’s true that speakers and sneakers are both inanimate objects that can’t decide to dote I’m not sure when it became necessary for a writer to clearly state s/he’s in the middle of personifying something. Everybody from New Jersey thinks, correctly or incorrectly, that they have the legacy of Bruce Springsteen, and as far as I can tell it’s entirely possible to whore what you think is “it” out even if what you have isn’t actually what somebody else thinks is “it,” and also: “it” itself is subjective. We’re not entirely sure what metaphors are being mixed, here: are you from a colloquial background where a din regularly “plays out” into something other than a flag? Where a flag of anthems is played out from another thing? Where “mixed metaphor” simply means “don’t use two metaphors in one sentence”? Where a simile is called a metaphor? Where one thing is suggested to have the potential of another thing and that comparison, which functions like a simile, is counted as two similes and not just one? Where one thing can be mixed? Where nouns and modifiers themselves are metaphors and similes? Where “should play out” has the exact same definition as “becomes”? Do tell…
Pt. 2
I’m not going to be baited dude. Beyond to say: do you know the definition of din and flag? One is a sound — one is a piece of fabric. The way that goofy sentence is constructed makes it sound like the din should sound like a fabric made of anthems stitched together.
I mean — what was the point of that email, other than to try to make yourself feel smart? Clearly you reread that review — saw how shitty it was — and decided to try to boost your ego. It’s sad.
I’m sorry you misconstrued the intent email to such a degree. It was more love than hate — more “Why has the site gotten so shitty in the past six months” than “You guys don’t know what you’re talking about.” But obviously you’re a defensive piece of shit who secretly knows how crappy the site’s gotten.
*****
Here’s hoping you run a counterpoint to the Hercules & Love Affair review, if only to wash away the foul aftertaste. I don’t know if Danny is straight, gay, bi, whatever, but the homophobia rampant in that review is blatant and shocking. On top of that, it’s yet another example of conceit over actual criticism. Thank you, that is all.
*****
re: Radiohead:: In Rainbows / Radiohead:: In Rainbows
I didnt like your words, but okay, you analyzed some things good (i mean the good things). I just want to say that you shouldnt write about the economical aspects. This album is just music. If its love or something else, radiohead never said that.
I think, thom’s voice plus the simple creativity of radiohead bring magic. In the most songs are very much emotions and especially warm emotions ( in the past was it more cold).
Goodbye
*****
dudez, what’s happening? is it just me or are you guys capitulating? it seems that along with the ads for fergie ringtones you’re re-working of the site has also bought far smaller, more snappy, less critical/exploratory music reviews. or is it just me? was there like a staff email sent out saying – ‘put more descriptive words and easy prose, less interesting criticism in your reviews’?
sorry for the hate, it’s probably ill-founded, but i really don’t want you guys to go down the tube.
*****
Pt. 1
so I love and religiously follow your Retcons, the Dub edition was especially useful, but your review of the roots’ album was just awful, regardless of how 80% it sounds to me. it was all very ironic, you just kept trying to prove you had the roots figured out more than they did, like one of those snake things that everyone likes to reference in that infinity shape.
but plus, it seems like you said Birthday Girl would have been the best song on the album? I stopped reading at that point so this whole email might be useless, but that statement was too offensive.
Rebuttal: Not a whole lot to respond to in your mail. I’m not really sure what was ironic about my piece, or that I was really trying to prove anything, but I’m sorry for offending you by liking “Birthday Girl.”
Pt. 2
I forgot / forget what the snake eating a snake is called, but it was like proving you know hip-hop by proving you know the rots know they know hip-hop, but you also know that the roots don’t really know hip-hop and this makes you better at hip-hop than the roots, which is supposedly a main con of the roots’ format.
i don’t care about the roots besides do you want more?!?!?!!?!?!?!!!!?!!!?!!!?!!?!!?!!!!!!!!?? and this one, it was just that that bugged me and made you sound like a pot. but maybe i missed the point, or pretzeled it into something to scorn you by.
Mark: Guys! I sound like a pot!
*****
re: Wu-Tang Clan :: 8 Diagrams
U God?
Not a good rapper? Don’t like his voice? Can you really be serious?
*****
re: Radiohead:: In Rainbows / Radiohead:: In Rainbows
Pt. 1
Please explain what the below means.
“it feels like vital parts are gone, missed somewhere in Radiohead’s search through their own oeuvre for something more and more facilely universal, something that draws lines within lines of song types and not the larger methodology, something that can be “important” without being challenging.”
“and Radiohead the entrepreneurs, who realized that life is good, love is nice, and people gonna cop that shit no matter what.”
“Radiohead have lost what they used to share with the left-field musicians they once consumed and redistributed with seeming ease: an aesthetic approach that understands how context complements sound instead of disguising it.”
Rebuttal: well, Geoff, the meanings of those statements are pretty self-evident, but you can find any further explanation and context that you might be looking for in the review from which you pulled them.
Pt. 2
Thank God no one reads this stuff.