Diet Cig - Swear I'm Good At This (April 7, 2017) Album • Page 6

That group can exist as well. Honestly these two people are just making music they want to make and playing the shows they want to play. The empowerment side of it is a byproduct of some of the people that are into their music. It's no different than a young kid going to a DIY punk show back in the day and watching a band like Dirt Bike Annie play a small club and be like, "I can do that" and starting their own project. That's a net positive to me if it happens. I'm not really sure how they are preventing other artists from exposure or empowerment since they are still relatively small in scale.

 

I actually don't love the album, I think it's fine, it won't make any end of year list i put out

Does it invalidate the messages of this record? hell no, this band has it together and is super fun and knows what's up and that's really what matters. They really are good people

 

Someone smelled a rat, and that rat scurried to some really cheesy shenanigans.

[Ethics] Pitchfork writer likes tweet from friend before scathingly reviewing album of band whose drummer cheated on said friend, who proceeds to call the review karma • r/KotakuInAction

 

Who the FUCK cares, stop feeding the beast

 

And just as a general matter of principle, if you don't like a Pitchfork review (and this one seemed extraordinarily stupid from the few sentences I read), then just ignore it. If you think you're doing anything but driving up their page view numbers by blasting their latest predictably "edgy" piece of content hi welcome to your first day on the internet and you're sorely mistaken. Best way to go against the grain with ridiculous reviews is to ignore the review altogether.

 

To be fair, it's seeming more and more likely their album was given to someone who didn't like the members personally and let that affect their critique, thus cheating Diet Cig out of a fair review.

 

See above

 

You totally have a valid point in ignoring the idiocy of the review, but if you check the Reddit link I just posted, you'll see that people have been finding proof of the writer of said review liking negative tweets from someone writing about their personal history with members from the band days prior to the review dropping.

If this were any other negative review about the music and nothing else, I'd be more than content in staying indifferent to Pitchfork's bullshit, but what seems to have happened in Diet Cig's case is a breach in bias of music journalism, stemming from personal drama as opposed to what should matter most: the music, and nothing else.

 

We're really jumping to conclusions here...

 

lmao

 

I don't click reddit links as a matter of principle, sorry. Every review is biased by definition. Following the trail of liked tweet breadcrumbs seems asinine and juvenile to me. Maybe I'm getting old at age almost 25 but I fail to see how any of this matters.

 

To summarize the link briefly, here's a quote from someone who condensed the situation in another thread:

"The writer of the Diet Cig review on Pitchfork liked a tweet by her friend saying her ex-bf (a member of Diet Cig) who cheated on her with her best friend in college has a new girl friend that looks like her. That tweet is posted days before the DC review is published, and is immediately liked by the writer once that tweet goes out. Best friend says that 5.1 is karma after the review is published, which the writer also likes immediately after it goes out."

 

the review is whack, but i'm not down at all with digging through someone's twitter/personal life to try and prove why she gave an album a mediocre score.

 

yeah let's stop talking about why she gave the band a negative review and focus on the actual content itself and how/why it really is harmful

who gives a shit about a "negative review" that part of this doesn't matter, if they had gotten a negative review with even a poorly written review that would have been fine. there's a very specific reason why this specific review is horrible

 

Here is a good tweet why.

 

Disagreeing with the review and thinking it is poorly written is one thing but dismissing it as harmful is another. I think it needed to be said (not even about this band specifically but in general) and I am very glad somebody with power said it so a bunch of us don't have to feel it on the inside and get laughed at every time we try to talk about it outside of private conversations

sorry I keep saying this over and over again & taking up so much space but it's because I want anyone reading this thread to know clearly that there are women and nb folks who do not think elevating bad music solely based on non-artistic criteria is a thing that's empowering or helpful (I have had conversations with women musicians who feel this strongly) and if the content of this review gets brushed away as something people (and implicitly, non-men) unanimously agree as problematic, then that means silencing particular criticisms will become an even more common thing

 

also I find the rabbit hole re: tweets troubling. if the writer had been male he would've gotten more shit than Quinn has (and rightfully so) but I doubt his intentions in writing the review would have been questioned even if he had liked some tweets. She may have been tangentially aware of personal drama, but assuming that her opinions must be a byproduct of that by default is pretty loaded

 

Just listened to them for the first time. Cool album, cool band name. Wish their Boston show wasn't tonight, otherwise I'd probably go.

 

see i think that's not even close to the issue there. you can dislike a band and think they're bad but obviously many people think this band is legitimately very good. i mean i don't even love the album but they're super fun live and a great time and they're obviously talented. putting an artist down in a way that is clearly because you have a different impression of feminism and what music should actually be like is pretty horrible

there was a way for her to do a negative review in a productive way and this was not one of those ways. harsh reviews are fine but this is a personal attack solely based on one's different viewpoints, and attacking aspects of the band that are inspirational and important to very many people because of that is bad

 

I mean I disagree with you pretty entirely and I think the way you're approaching this is biased (they are pretty clearly not talented objectively*, music criticism can tackle viewpoints when they are reflected openly in the music and the writer is affected by the viewpoint in question, etc.) but you already know that. Also being "inspirational" doesn't provide immunity from critical evaluation, and being a good person should not factor in at all

*their songs are such that someone who has been playing guitar for a month can write them, their lyrics are such that someone who randomly writes uncohesive observations can replicate their quality, the vocal melodies are sung without care and attempt to sound sugary without actually being catchy or interesting, none of the arrangements require any thought whatsoever. you can argue that technicality isn't the only measure of validity, but this record lacks any technical merit whatsoever in all aspects which is a pretty severe extreme. you couldn't parody simple, thoughtless music that still takes itself semi-seriously more accurately than this does tbh

 

i disagree complete with them not being talented because i've seen them live a ton and the way she can pull off doing anything when moving how she does takes a whole lot of talent

"objective" opinions are music are bad and no fun and ruin enjoyment of music

 

I like this band and I mostly like this album. Trying to break this band down piece by piece is incredibly laughable and you are definitely overthinking it. Sometimes I just want to have fun. This band, to me, embodies that.

 

I love how people from both sides are liking this post hahaha

 

Alright I'm beginning to feel this band.