JJ wrote: » If you want the full review, here it is: http://67.159.5.242/ip-1/encoded/Oi8vcGFzdGViaW4uY29tL2VCakhlWXRK
That decision was made to publish for a couple of reasons, principally with the sincere hope to create some kind of discussion about reviews of this sort and how they obviously conflict with the status quo
ngunners wrote: » I was at both the Cork and Dublin gigs (bought tickets for the Iveagh gardens before moving to Cork) and I have to say that the crowd was much more polite and enthusiastic in Cork. The only downsided were the French people who were urging Annie to hurry up during the pause in the middle of 'Regret'. They shouted out 'hurry up so we can go to bed' in French and ruined what could have been a beautiful moment. I didn't find the crowd in Dublin overly chatty but it was pretty embarrsing how everyone just waited around in silence for the encore rather than cheering for the band to get back on stage. A really obnoxious sense of entitlement. The only thing I preferred about Dublin over Cork would be the setlist ( yayyy for 'Severed Crossed Fingers').
adrian522 wrote: » I'm not sure what was worse the initial review or the complete cop out reasoning they used for publishing it in the first place. Just apologise and move on.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » I like St. Vincent's music and enjoyed her Olympia show last year but I have to doff my cap somewhat to that reviewer. If she just eased off a tad on the glacier NYC art rocker schtick she might get a warmer response. As the reviewer alluded to her songs (current) are quite chart friendly. She reminds me somewhat of Thomas Dolby circa 82 to 84.
Xenji wrote: » Its a he, not a she the reviewer.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » I'm not sure if you're being genuine or indulging in SV-style irony. I find it a bit sinister that the site that posted that review felt the need to apologize for it and then remove it. It's a very fair assessment of a St Vincent show and how she chooses to present herself. Why is she immune from fair comment/criticism? The removal of a review that was not in any way defamatory or offensive demonstrates frightening groupthink (or herd mentality) from a sector of society - music fans - that should be the most open to free speech and debate. As long as the site demonstrates it's not the editor's view and gives users the option to comment, the review should remain on the site. Having said that, I think he's unfair listing those other female artists and inferring they are somewhat better. Of the ones whose material I've heard or seen live performances they are just as guilty of taking themselves very seriously and making sure the audience knows it. It's essentially an indie trait and not a particularly endearing one.
adrian522 wrote: » It was a pretty sexist review, only really concerned with her leather outfit and was pretty demeaning. Barely mentioned the music at all, couldn't name a single song. Pretty embarrassing to put out a review like that. Which is why they removed it. Their revisionist reasoning for putting it up in the first place was the worst thing of all I think.
I’m all for attractively-figured women in black leather catsuits and heels (to say nothing of assistants sporting slit mini-skirts) – indeed Diana Rigg’s Emma Peel in The Avengers was my first small screen sexual epiphany – but the cool authority Clarke is aiming for with her aloofness is somehow undercut by the wind-up automaton-like ‘two little maids are we’ baby steps she indulges in with Yasuda, alternated with exaggeratedly giant prancing around the stage.
adrian522 wrote: » Well I found it objectionable in the extreme, I wouldn't even class it as a review really. "Cooing" over her Guitar playing? That is exactly what a review should be, it should give some feedback on what she is like as a musician, what the gig was like, her performances of the various songs etc. It should not be some claptrap about: That is just nonsense and says nothing about what the gig was like, if you say her guitar playing was excellent (which it was) at least that says something about what the gig was like.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » That reviewer did acknowledge her guitar playing if you re-read it. Her guitar playing is excellent and her current music is catchy but can we least admit that there is an element of pretense and elitism about the stage schtick. It's no more profound than Billy Gibbons wearing a silly beard and swaying robotically from side to side whilst still being a monster guitarist underneath. Here's a line from a newly posted review from the same site: "Even her somewhat corny chat about wanting to steal Lion bars from Topaz and flying with pizza boxes seems impressive in the context of a show that feels like living in a different dimension for a little while." Being a St. Vincent fan obviously makes a certain cohort feel very, very important.
bdogg wrote: » She's from Oklahoma. She wasn't beamed in from space into the Lower East Side. It's like she took all the asthetic of David Byrne and the new wave scene in late 70's but didn't borrow any of the humour or intelligence that underpinned it. Good guitar player, stunning looking - but her songwriting is pedestrian at best. Plus, John Congleton basically arranges all the stuff for her. What irks me is that she's lauded as a songwriting genius. Nope.
adrian522 wrote: » Similar to the original review what you've said there says absolutely nothing about the gig. IT's not a review of the performance it's an opinion of the artist.
bdogg wrote: » She's from Oklahoma. She wasn't beamed in from space into the Lower East Side. It's like she took all the asthetic of David Byrne and the new wave scene in late 70's but didn't borrow any of the humour or intelligence that underpinned it. Good guitar player, stunning looking - but her songwriting is pedestrian at best. Plus, John Congleton basically arranges all the stuff for her. What irks me is that she's lauded as a songwriting genius. Nope. I've seen her twice, and have to only concur with the "emperor has no clothes" sentiment of the original review. I think it's the constant assertion by the music press that she's amazing is what grates the most. I honestly don't get the sexism furore over the review. Think that's a red herring - it's the calling a spade a spade that has people up in arms.
Desmond_T wrote: » Thanks for the sane and supportive comments on here. Here are my reflections, from some distance, on the whole fiasco. The original review can be found there too.http://desmondtraynor.blogspot.ie/2015/08/des-traynor-thin-air-and-trial-by.html?showComment=1438929165943
Desmond_T wrote: » Thanks for the sane and supportive comments on here. Here are my reflections, from some distance, on the whole fiasco. The original review can be found there too.
The Enabler wrote: » To be fair he did seem to be subject to an undeserving amount of criticism and Twitter trolling, not to mention that he was subsequently dropped by The Thin Air. A review is only ever one persons opinion and he should not have been vilified to the extent he was. I'm a St Vincent fan and even though I don't agree with all of the review I do think he made some valid points.
alaimacerc wrote: » Des T didn't actually really seem to have a lot to say about St Vincent. Des T on the subject of Des T seems to be a very different proposition. Still, as they say: write what you need to write, write what you'd want to read, and write what you know. I notice the meta-review also goes with the "sane" self-descriptor, in implied contrast to any criticism he's received. Always a good way to mend fences, that.
alaimacerc wrote: » I didn't follow the socmed reaction in detail, but the mag's reaction does seem to be particularly craven, sure. Still, while I might defend to the death his right, and all that, it was a spectacularly shallow review, and he's essentially just doubling down on that with this followup piece. When it comes down to it, the musical element of the review comes to listening to all of half a live performance and nothing else whatsoever, and immediateoly writing her off as "vacuous 80s synth pop". And when called on what an immensely shallow assessment on this, resorting to some vague credential-waving and a general sense of "trust me on this, I'm that self-assured about my own snap judgements".
Desmond_T wrote: » The follow-up piece has, I hope, less to do with the merits or not of St. Vincent, or the merits or not of my review of St. Vincent, but more to do with how the live music industry works in this country. I thought that would have been obvious.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » This has been a really nasty, unnecessary little saga and left a bad taste but inadvertently has shown the hand of how the Dublin music scene is operating. About 18 months ago, when I first read of SV but hadn't heard a note played by her, I knew the Irish music journos would go excessively hoop-la for her. She fits the profile of what they want their readers and audiences to like and identify with: American, indie credentials, stamp of approval from David Byrne - all boxes are ticked. What she actually sounds like is irrelevant, borne out by the excessive talking, drinking and general disinterest at Iveagh Gardens. Accordingly, any criticism of an artist who is anointed as such is erroneously (and subliminally) perceived as an attack on the constructed identity of the party doing the trolling. I like her as an artist though, and I enjoyed her Olympia show. She has a few big commercial numbers and vids that in the 80s and 90s would have been on heavy rotation on MTV, which shows far mainstream music has since fallen. She's sitting uneasily in musical purgatory between the mainstream and the dour, bearded alternative. She should have wider appeal than she does. Ironically, the Thin Air has done her no favours.
Birneybau wrote: » To be honest, I got into her on the back of 'Strange Mercy', which came out in 2011, there was a fair bit of press about her even then.
