Elimination Round

I have to say, you guys did a terrible job of picking albums this year. There's very few inspired choices, and it seems like everyone is trying too hard to be a part of the psych CDR intelligentsia instead of coming clean and admitting they listened to Permission to Land all year. I feel I have to make some wholesale changes to the nominations, or else THE LIST will degrade into a discussion of which Black Forest/Black Sea record is better, or whether Chasney or Rose is the better solo folk acoustic guitar player.

First of all, you guys all ignored the best album of the year: AC Newman's The Slow Wonder. Are you guys afraid that if you admit you liked a pop record, you might actually get a girlfriend? Or were you dudes so busy listening to the Pavement reissues that you totally ignored all the great indie pop that was fresh and new and doesn't have a DVD out yet (since having a DVD out seems to be the definitive proof of a band's importance)?

And with all the underground psyche you guys nominated, you leave off Comets on Fire's Blue Cathedral? After jumping all over their last album, Field Recordings on the Sun, you ignore the followup which tears the old one to shreds. And with all the Jewelled Antler stuff you guys made sure you mentioned, how about giving Bardo Pond and Tom Carter some love for their 4/23/03 recording (one of the best Bardo releases of the last 5 years)? And what about Kinski? Don't forget their improv release Don't Climb On and Take the Holy Water was released this year. And don't even talk to me about how fast Sunburned Hand of the Man has seemed to fallen out of favor. We gotta at least put Rare Wood up there.

And you guys fought over who would be the first to mention the controversial Joanna Newsom, but you ignore Devendra Banhart's Rejoicing in the Hands? Granted he is much more terrible, but several of you still loved that record, and I have to assume you were avoiding conflict by not nominated it, which is about as much against the spirit of THE LIST as you can get.

And I was surprised and disappointed no one would donate a spot to Brian Wilson. Not only did he give us Carnie, but he battled his demons enough to complete the 37 year old recordings that helped feul that breakdown. And not even a sympathy #3 spot in lieu of some CDR or cassette release no one's heard of and no one will seek out? Dudes, respect your elders, and put Smile on THE LIST.

60s artists weren't the only ones you ignored. Maybe you thought you'd seem like an old codger if you nominated a 90s band, but three bands from that era proved they are still great and relevant by releasing outstanding records this year. It would be a shame to ignore them and leave them off the list: Magnetic Fields' I, Modest Mouse' Good News For People Who Love Bad News, and Blonde Redhead's Misery Is a Butterfly.

In addition to some old bands, I'd like to throw in a couple new bands as well. Mouthus' self-titled album came out earlier this year and is a better noise rock album than more popular bands like Black Dice and Wolf Eyes. And Vetiver deserves inclusion for having guest spots from Devendra and Joanna, but quality enough not to seem like bandwagon jumping scenesters.

To be even more random, I was watching TV this year, and there are two commercials I like. One is that cellphone commercial where Kanye West calls up Ludacris and some other guy, and they record a new song over the cellphone. And then Kanye says that jam is so dope, he'll have to keep it for himself. The other one is that car commercial where they play "Surfing on a Rocket." Both of the albums I liked a lot before their commercials came out, and then after their commercials came out, I listened to them again and liked them even more. So, Air's Talkie Walkie and Kanye's College Dropout are both added to THE LIST.

While I was making this list of addendums, I was reminded what the name of the site was. It is fake freaking jazz, you assholes. It's not fake folk. It's not fake field recordings with dudes playing fake drones over top of it. So I will nominate the album you dudes all bought, listened to once, and then put away since it wasn't cool to still be listening to them. Yes, Tortoise's It's All Around You is going on THE LIST, and it's pretty good. While fakejazz was never exclusively about fake jazz, it would be very sad if we just ignored Tortoise, in any year.

Finally, Pete has been misguided and tried to avoid picking Landing. Maybe he thought he should change it up a little since he always picks Landing. Maybe he thought since he subbed in for Adrienne Snow last tour that he was now not allowed to pick them. Whatever the reason, if you look into Pete's heart, you will see he really wanted to pick Landing #1. In order to avoid the Black Forest/Black Sea double dip mentioned previously, I will remove his choice of Forcefields and Constellations and replace it with Sphere.

As I open up THE LIST to eliminations and discussion, I'd like to say you're free to try to eliminate my addendums as well. I make these addendums mainly to open up the discussion, and make it harder for people to jump on the one or two popular albums you guys actually chose.

Pete: It seems a little unfair that if the reason for taking Black Forest/Black Sea off is because it was a double dip that mine was chosen because 1) I chose it first so Daron's was the double dip, and 2) it is better than Radiant Symmetry.

Jefre Cantu's Elimination

Gil: My hero!

Bryan: Haha, awesome.

Andy: You know what? Fuck you, you pricks. Oh wow, get rid of Newsom because of the hype. That'll show the mean hip kids from high school that are now the mean hip kids at shows. Boo fucking hoo—"I don't want people to get press. My life is meaningless and full of disappointments that will one day metastasize into a giant bitter pearl of cancer that will tear through my body like a Drano colonic." Well, whoop-dee-doo, every once and a while hype just doesn't come from a bunch of hipster dipshits and that Algonquin Roundtable known as Pitchfork, sometimes it's actually justified because an artist is able to actually connect with people by making interesting music and writing lyrics that have actual poetic content and aren't just about how sad she is that some goofus whitebelt dumped her ass before the indie rock prom or whatever shitheads write songs about these days. So you know what, maybe when you're all done jerking off to whatever hippie folk collective CDR that was the umpteenth one this month because it takes about as much creativity to get high and hit record as it does to fool people into thinking that what they're doing is worthwhile, maybe then you'll get a clue.

Also, since Bryan's taste in music is about as sophisticated as an eighth-grade boy's taste in women (so many new boobies!), and therefore isn't included in the above tirade: you suck. You should just bow out now and let the adults talk. Newsom's album was one of the most creative and emotionally satisfying things to come out this year, and if you can't see that because you're jealous or whatever, then maybe you should stop being such a pussy.

However, if you don't like her because of her voice, then that's just a matter of taste.

Gil: Who said anything about hype? Newsom's voice just gives me hives. Honestly? I'd opt for that Drano colonic over ever having to hear it again.

Jefre: Hey, take it personally why don't you?

For the record, my elimination had nothing to do with hype, coolness, wanting to get back at people, wanting to piss people off, penal dysfunction, pent up sexual aggression, etc., etc., blah blah blah blah. Living here in San Francisco, I've seen Joanna play for some time, definitely a lot longer than she has been hyped... and I've always had the feeling that I would rather be listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.

Pete: So the obvious reason was that you are an idiot then? OH! SNAP!

Andy:Maybe you guys don't like that "New Weird America" term that some retard from Wire came up with that Newsom seems to fall under the rubric of because, well, it's a ridiculous term that just incorporates anything that isn't indie rock or noise, so kids can feel safe by understanding what they are listening to. Otherwise, they might have to actually embrace the music for what it is and not as part of some awesome movement that's sweeping the nation. Gosh, how crazy would it be for someone to just accept a band that wasn't part of a trend! So, maybe you dislike her because of what she's associated with. Good job! Way to buy into the same idea as everyone you decry when you sit with your dorky music-loving pals and wonder where all the girls are. Because, see, you're doing the exact same thing as those who want to define the "New Weird America" movement, but (cue the sad music) you're on the outside.

Polemic for the sake of THE LIST aside, I don't think those are valid reasons to get rid of Newsom. If you just didn't like the music, that's fine, but I get the idea that, besides the arbitrary nature of THE LIST, there may be a kernel of truth in my previous insults. There were very few albums this year that I was excited about as much as this one, and without reserve, I think I can say that this was one of the most lyrically challenging and emotionally honest albums released in 2004. Are those things necessary for a good album? No, but I believe that those are the qualities that keep music relevant for years to come despite changing fads and mindsets.

Gil: Where's this alleged emotional honesty in Newsom's lyrics? All I'm hearing is third-rate Edward Lear with the affect of the moony, doe-eyed college sophomore misfit who fashions her own shapeless clothes from gingham and calico and still lives for Lisa Frank stickers, glitter pens, sun bonnets, and Anne of Green Gables novels.

Jim: If you're trying to convince me to veto the elimination, Gil, you're doing a pretty good job!

Gil: Beckerman, go listen to Judee Sill's two albums (s/t and Heart Food), and then we can talk about "emotional honesty" and "lyrical complexity." True greatness need not screech and mewl and paw blindly through antique lexicons.

Bryan: Obviously this record hit you pretty hard, Andy. That's cool! Glad you like it so much! Seriously, that's great. Music is supposed to do that. It didn't impact me one bit though. Sure, the harp playing is good and nice and pretty sweet, but I couldn't get past the voice (and it's a pretty prominent feature). So to my 8th grade mind, Joanna Newsom should be off the list. By the way, I'm happy liking what I like. Just because you say that I should like something more "complex" doesn't mean it's right. Music makes me happy. You make me sad.

Jeff: I didn't think we got rid of Newsom because of the hype, I thought we bounced her 'cause the record sucked. Forget the voice, the lyrics are childish and the melodies are non-existent. Just when I thought it wasn't possible to hear anything worse than Marianne Nowottny's haunted, banshee-wailing screechfest Illusions of the Sun, this came along.

Daron: If the melodies are non-existant, how come so many of her amazing melodies are stuck in my head? And I think there is a huge difference between childish and childlike.

Adam: Childish lyrics? Find me a third grader using the words she does. That doesn't even make sense. And to say the melodies are non-existant doesn't really, either... that album's totally melodic.

Bryan: Yeah, go ahead and keep her. The only reason I have to boot her is because I don't like her. That's all.

Sean: Wait, did someone say Milk-Eyed Mender's melodies were non-existent? That's ridiculous. That's as defendable as saying the album has no harp.

Andy: Screw Judee Sill. I only nominated Joanna because she's cute.

Gil: She is cute, I'll grant you that. Oh, a lass with a harp! how darling! But her finest moment is the few wordless seconds of shimmery harp-pluckery she contributed to the mediocre Nervous Cop record.

Daron: Oh please, while her contribution to Nervous Cop was interesting, her album blows that out of the water. And, you can't fool me, Gil, I have heard more precious singing and lyrics coming out of your room many times... and heard much worse singing as well. Can you honestly tell me that if she wasn't well known, you wouldn't be telling people how great she was. I don't buy it.

Obviously taste is what it is, but I for one think it is an amazing album (lovely, well written music & lyrics, and beautifully played), and think that some people are just uninterested in judging the album on its own merits because it is so much more fun and easier to dislike it based on supposed "hype" and popularity. Not everyone who dislikes her falls into this category, but I believe a lot of you do.

Bryan: I don't fall into that category. No way. I've heard the record at least 5 times (which is way more times that I usually give something to stew) and I honestly and wholeheartedly dislike it. Don't try and lay that bogus crap on me. I honestly dislike Joanna Newsom's music.

Daron: But it wasn't bogus. I think a lot of people fall into that. You were one I know did not because I have talked with you a lot about her.

Bryan: It's an easy assumption to make, but the opposite stance could also be true. Many of you may just like her because of the hype. Hmmm, suck on that.

Daron: Yeah, I am pretty sure that is why you like Interpol too. Because they have way more hype.

Bryan: Totally. Check out my new gun holster!! By the way, I only said that because I don't think it's a fair argument either way.

Gil: Never said I have a problem with precious voices and material. I love Virginia Astley, Stina Nordenstam, Cranes, Orange Juice, Field Mice, and even the sodding Sallyangie. But there's something elemental in Newsom's voice to which I must be violently allergic. I could try desensitization treatments, exposing myself to her voice in increasingly larger doses over time, but life's just too short, mang.

Bill: Joanna Newsom = Janice from "Friends".

Jim: More like Phoebe, really. I'd love to hear "Smelly Cat" on the harp.

Adam: How did I know that Joanna Newsom would suffer a quick elimination bid as well? Complain about her voice all you want (and that's all anyone can seem to focus on, it seems), but that album is a freakin' gem, and regardless of what Jim says about trying to lump Devendra in with her, it rises above any new weird anything. Joanna's totally not the type of thing I'd usually like, but this disc took me by surprise, and very quickly became a big favorite of mine. All that "nails on a chalkboard," "cat screech" stuff seems like an easy and ineffective way to try to pass her off as something less than she is, but no one seems to want to discuss how expertly she plays and composes for the harp, and how there's some seriously good music going on. But, to hear that, you'd have to get past her voice, and, good god, why the hell would we want to do that? Gil, you can cite all sorts of assumptions about her personality and try to bring it all back to Lisa Frank and a little girl's fetish for costume dress, but if The List were all about deconstructing people's personalities (and most likely short-changing them all), it'd be a whole different kind of monster. Milk-Eyed Mender, is, simply put, one of the most beautiful albums of the year. Sure, it's a little different, perhaps too idiosyncratic for everyone, but, it's really touching, poetic, and just damn good. Sure, Gil, we can come up with people who show the same/more sincerity or emotion, but how does that matter one iota in a discussion that's strictly in regard to Newsom's debut album? I could list a gazillion bands who showed just as much or more of the emotion of Nirvana, but it doesn't mean their effect on mainstream music, and their music, in general, was any less impressive when it surfaced. I mean, I expect this stuff from Bryan (no offense, dude, I just think you've got a pretty straight m.o.), but Gil, I know for a fact you listen to some challenging stuff, and it's a shame that you're so willing to write Joanna off. I'm pretty sure you like Mayhem, right? If you're going to suggest for one second that Euronymous' voice is one bit less abrasive and weird, you're crazy. But they both rule.

Gil: If Drag City, taking a cue from other fine undie hip-hop labels, were to capitalize on the surprise success of Milk-Eyed Mender by releasing a separate "Milkstrumentals" CD, I'd be first in line to buy a copy. Newsom's harpistry is ace. In theory, her music is so precisely my thing, and I want nothing more than to be its happy suckling bitch. But I cannot and will not get past the queasy feelings her precious lyrics and caterwauling delivery stir invariably in the depths of my gut. Music should challenge, maybe ever hurt, but not sicken. I've tried to love it, really I did, but the nausea always wins out.

Adam, I'm not so sure Euronymous singing about walnut boats and mairzy doats and liddle lamzy divey wouldn't be the most freaking awesome thing ever. I'll bet you Garm could pull off Ms. Newsom's material with aplomb to burn (churches). But what's that got to do with kiddley divey, hmm? no, sir, I just don't like it. And no argument or personal attack will convince my roiling belly otherwise.

And, for the record, I'd buy a multi-disc set of fingernails vs. blackboard recordings (I'm sure Irdial or Mego has one in the works), but I wouldn't even accept a copy of Milk-Eyed Mender as a gift.

I just wanted to remind my peers that I wasn't the one to call for the elimination of J-No's noisome album from THE LIST (i have my sights set elsewhere), but merely the first to applaud Jefre for doing what all of me was wussing out on doing and hoping someone would have the cojones to do. I realize that people seem to have taken quite a shine to this gal and that my strong antipathy places me in the minority. But the opposition needs to be heard, dammit.

Not to suggest that anyone who likes The Milk-Eyed Mender probably wouldn't know shit from shoe polish... or are they?

Adam: No personal attacks intended, dude. You know how THE LIST brings out the worst in all of us.

I guess, if it all comes down to personal opinion, I can't argue against your dislike of Ms. Newsom's voice. I'd challenge your assertion that the lyrical content is overly childish, though I'll admit that there's a certain sense of whimsical charm in her poetics.

Phil: As for her album, I have to admit that the notion of performing original compositions on the harp in the 21st-century sounded a lot more compelling than the actual result. Her playing is great, her singing is not. Suggesting that anyone should just "get past" the tone of her voice because of the quality of the harpistry or songwriting seems misguided, given that her voice makes up approximately half of the musical content. I believe the real crime here isn't the relative hype from her affiliation with Devendra or a tangential relation to a non-scene, but ascribing an artist undue credit for being little more than a modern-day minstrel whose distinctly abrasive voice meshes poorly with the angelic harp. I'll preorder a copy of the "Milkstrumentals."

Daron: I don't think anyone is saying "look past the voice". I, for one, love her voice. It is just one of those voices that takes a little getting used to. Like Dylan or Oldham. I would hate for her to not sound like she does. On first listen I wasn't sure I would like it, but after my second listen, I was totally hooked by her voice. There are people that say Oldham's voice is terrible too, and yes, he and she wouldn't be great in a choir class, but their voices are a lot of what makes them so wonderful. It isn't for everyone, but it is an amazing record, and she has an amazing voice.

Phil: Comparing Newsom's voice to Dylan's or Oldham's does all three a tremendous disservice. On that criteria alone, I'd still rather hear the off-key warbling of Lou Reed or Philip Niemeyer than the on-key screeching of a Mariah Carey or Celine Dion. Factor in the lyrical weight of Dylan or the emotive breadth of Oldham, and Newsom has very little to offer in her own defense. Does her range extend beyond that puerile, doe-eyed caterwauling? Is she capable of expressing anything more than wide-eyed wonderment while flexing her thesaurus-flipping chops? I ask ya.

Andy: In defense of her voice—not that this really needs to be defended, since it's actually just a matter of taste—but I feel that the hyperbole about her, as Gil said, "mewling" has gone so far as to become metabole. In some interview I read with her, she cited Texas Gladden, some folk woman from the earlier part of the century I guess (I can't remember exactly and have done no research) as an influence, so I soulseeked Ms. Gladden's name and found a few tracks. Newsom and Gladden do indeed have similar voices, but not so much in quality, as in untrained ability. What links these two people, and what links Newsom to this old tradition is that they just sing. Newsom's voice is not refined, and I, and maybe Adam and some other, feel that would make her less interesting. She hits her notes—she's not off-key; she has a decent range, so where does the revulsion come in? Because of a strange inflection due to the way she naturally sings? If this is your rationale, then you have to discount almost all the music (with vocals) reviewed in fakejazz, because most of the people we all listen to have strange voices. This is a patently silly reason to disqualify her.

In defense of her lyrics, calling an album poetic does not mean that it lends itself to comparisons with actual poetry; the standards are way different. My point is that I think it's a bit silly to compare her to actual poets even though she makes great use of assonance and alliteration and such. I wonder if the resistance to her lyrics though is this, that for whatever reason, because she does use anachronistic language that many people take her to be inauthentic. I think Colin Meloy may get the same criticisms, implicitly or explicitly. Here is my question then for you guys, if this is so, why do you want to limit the lyrical schemas that are available to songwriters? So what if she write in a way that recalls old poetry? Don't you want as many options open to lyric writers as possible? Maybe Gil dislikes it because he actually thinks they are bad, if that's so, then I ask you to look beyond the lyrics and look at the sentiment behind it. I don't think Newsom chose to write songs like that because she's affecting a stance. I think, like her voice, she's just expressing herself in a way that comes naturally, and it just so happens to be in a way that incorporates "archaic" imagery. So what if, as Gil claims (and I've never heard her) she's not as good as Sill? That doesn't make Newsom's accomplishments any less emotionally affecting and interesting.

Bryan: Basically, you're saying "just try harder?" No thanks. I've wasted enough time listening to something that so obviously is NOT my cup of tea. I understand the impact she's had on you, but to expect her to deliver that impact to everyone else is a little naive. Maybe? I don't know.

Andy: No, dickface, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you don't like it for some gut reason, I can't really argue with you, but otherwise, everyone's rationales have been silly or off-base so far.

Bryan: Maybe you should have just said that instead of saying a lot of boring stuff that no one paid any attention to.

Jim: I am trying to get a handle on this discussion of the Newsom record so I can best determine whether its elimination should be vetoed. So far, the reasons for eliminating it have been her voice, Anne of Green Gables, and Jefre lives in San Francisco too, and the reasons for keeping it on are she is cute, "lyrically challenging and emotionally honest," and no one else uses a harp. I will tell you right now that the reasons for keeping it on seem a lot more potent than the reasons for eliminating it. Maybe the "obvious reasons" mentioned originally have not really been addressed yet, or at least not honestly.

Sean: I think Joanna's voice is annoying. But, after seeing her play I couldn't deny how incredible her songs and voice were. I've since come to love the album despite the fact that I kind of wish she'd sing differently. If I didn't know that someone else would be nominating her record for their list, I would have considered putting it up myself.

That said, I don't think it's unfair at all to eliminate her because of her voice. Or her lyrics. Or her songwriting. Or any of the things that would help someone form an opinion about her music. Eliminating her because of the "hype"? Yeah, that would be unfair.

Bryan: No offense taken bro. You know how I work, if something doesn't appeal to me I can't just get over it to see the "genius" at the center. I go on pure aesthetics, and aesthetically Ms. Newsom's voice doesn't appeal to me at all. Her harp playing, however, is dazzling. So, that gives her a grade of 50% in my book which is failing nonetheless.

Gil: The voice is such a big part of why I can't endorse Newsom, but it's not the only reason. Her songwriting just hasn't won me over. I find it affected and charmless. Without waving my credentials like a banner, let's just say I've listened to a lot of folk, and undeniable magic often results from the combination of an idiosyncratic voice and a clever pen/quill. I get no such vibe from Newsom, affording her too much in common with Nowottny (yes!) and Heather Leigh X-as-vocalist to merit a place on THE LIST.

Can we replace Joanna's THE LIST nomination with fakejazz props for her cousin, Gavin? As the Mayor of San Francisco, he has taken great—ok, if not always strictly legal—strides in defense of the Constitutional rights of same-sex couples. He's a bona fide ML-Gay, Jr. (I'm sure plenty of folk are gunning for him, too) and a rare beacon of political decency in these grim Red State times. And he's dreamy. And his wife is criminally hot. Yowzas!

Jim: "Good head means watching your teeth!" - The Other Ms. Newsom

Adam: You could probably argue that Gavin Newsom bringing gay marriage to the national agenda when the country really wasn't ready for it was in some way responsible for the large turnout of rightwing nutjobs to the polls in all those states, and therefore to the election of George W. Bush, the end of the free world, etc. It was a nice effort, yeah, but may have done more damage than he realized.

Gil: All true. But his wife is so damn hot.

Jeff: Oh great, now you fucking commie terrorist anti-American liberal hippie shit terrorists are blaming George Bush for Newsom's cold reception amongst some members of the cognoscenti. Get over it—you lost. Now go home and sulk and let's get back to the elimination round.

By the way, as long as we're bringing her family in to the discussion of her record's inherent worth or lack thereof, is she the daughter of that wimpoid Tommy Newsom who used to do music on late night talk shows or something?

Gil: I think the vote is 4:4. Eat our fuck, Milk-Eyed Mender As usual, Jon Dale sez it best. "Vashti Bunyan my jaded ass, Joanna Newsom is Cyndi Lauper." One more reason to love that man.

Sean: Ok, I'll fight dirty:

Hey Bryan, are you sure you want to be on the "against" side? Remember, Gil's on that side.

Hey Gil, are you sure you want to be on the "against" side? Remember, Bryan's on that side.

Bryan: Ha ha, doesn't that convince you how much I hate Joanna Newsom? Bam.

Sean: Actually it just adds to my conviction that you're both really confused. Or at least one of you is.

Bryan: Not confused. Heard it. Don't like it. Why is this so hard to believe?

Sean: Well, there are a few reasons. The main reason is that I was joking about my last two comments in the Joanna debate. Another reason is because Joanna writes really good songs regardless of how her voice sounds, who has recorded albums in the past that gil or bill thinks are far better (which would render Joanna's album void and worthless) or any other reasons that have gotten in the way of anyone being able to enjoy the album. I'm not acting superior about it, I'm just saying, seriously, the songs are really good. I understand the problem with her voice, but the songs speak to me regardless. And her lyrics are precious and maybe not totally brilliant, but they're pretty alright. I don't think you're stupid if you don't like it, I just wish you would see the greatness too. That's all.

But hey, I'm just a dude, what do I know? So don't be pissed, dude. Unless you're going to say awesome stuff that is funny to read.

Jeff: Wait, are you talking about Joanna Newsom or Tom Waits here? Seems like your argument holds for both. Thank god no one nominated Real Gone.

Bryan: I'm not pissed, in fact I'm stoked that you love her music so much!! Here's the deal, I won't tell you to dislike her so long as you don't infer that I just haven't gotten her yet. I get her. I don't like her. The songs are okay, the harp playing is nice (but nothing too special to my ears), and the singing is no good at all. Like I said before, this has no impact on me. I'm sick of saying this over and over again.

Daron: Yeah, what sounds good to some, sounds bad or boring to others. It is just a matter of what someone likes.

Robin: No shit, Sherlock.

Gil: Jim, the defense of Joanna Newsom seems to have abated. Those who bother to speak up now do so with greatly diminished energy and apparent concession that, yeah, maybe Newsom isn't the greatest thing since silken tofu. So does this constitute a win for Jefre, Bryan, Jeff, and myself? Or, as I like to call us, the Coalition of the Sensible.

Robin: Gil, you go too far calling yourself sensible.

Gil: Oh hush, Robin. I've argued my case, without once citing the "hype" as just cause for Newsom's elimination.

Daron: No, Gil. Jim seemed to realize that you guys were wrong, and we knew our arguments were good enough to save it.

Bill: My albeit limited and now decidedly dated comment that Joanna sounded like Janice, or indeed Phoebe, was intended to demonstrate a siding with the coalition. To cite a genuine and specific reason for ME-M's elimination, the catchiest tune, "Inflammatory Writ" is unfortunately nothing more than a throwaway piece of nonsense that, while twould be a source of pride for a third grader (is that right?), is, frankly, an embarrassment for someone making the type of record that Newsom is patently attempting to create. I'll be sticking with Briggs and Collins, and Banhart and Vetiver too; both on the list and preferable any day to Milk-Eyed Mender.

Adam: "Inflammatory Writ" may be the album's catchiest tune in a traditional sense, but I actually think it's the weakest on the album, partially for that reason. Vetiver and Banhart are both okay, but neither does for me what Joanna's music does.

Pete: I am also, absolutely, for Joanna Newsom staying on. In your fucking face coalition!!

Jim: A detriment to your coalition is that the argument has degraded into "I like it" vs. "I just don't like it." You're the only one who has tried to make an argument that it isn't really that great if you move past the cursory issues of her voice and the hype. You're right, I expected more of an argument from people like Sean and Daron, but your Coalition has seemed more like the He-Man Woman Haters Club than the historic union of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Micronesia, Uzbekistan, Tonga, and the United States. If it's really just a matter of taste, then we have to keep Ms. Newsom on THE LIST since so many feel so strongly she should remain.

Andy: You forgot Poland. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Bryan: Fine, I have no problem with that. If this is how THE LIST works, that's cool. People like her, less people don't like her. Whatever.

Sean: I haven't fought for her because I haven't seen anything to fight against. Kind of like what you said, Jim, how can I argue with the fact that Bryan doesn't like the record? I like it, he doesn't. Big deal, what's there to fight about?

Bryan: Totally. Neither of us pretends to know that this record is right for everyone. No record is universally loved. Anyway, if it's a fight for numbers, she obviously stays on.

Gil: By the numbers, she should be eliminated 6:5.

Jim: This isn't a democracy, this is a debate. You get "numbers" by making points, not finding compatriots. This argument is so contentious, I think the decision is best left to the audience vote.

Cory Rayborn's Elimination

Daron: Adding them to the list has nothing to do with them being on MTV. They have been a band that has consistently put out great, indie records. They have always been credible, despite finally having a song on MTV, they still are. And whether they are good or not depends more on if you like that type of music. I think they are great, and love the new album.

Brad: I disagree. Modest Mouse was decent on a few of their early records (The Moon & Antarctica being their best), but the new one is boring and uninspired. Isaac Brock even sounds like he has no interest in what he's singing or playing. The only thing that made Modest Mouse the least bit interesting was his often-chaotic, wrecked diatribes/vocals. That's gone on the new album. Now they just sound like what I thought they were to begin with: a cheap Built to Spill knock-off.

Jim: That sounds more like Three Mile Pilot than Built to Spill?

Phil: I wish Cory wouldn't eliminate Modest Mouse because I really do like that album. But I also agree with others who have said that it's little more than a healthy sampling of their previous releases with a fresh coat of production splashed across the top and likely doesn't deserve to be called the best of the year. Be sure to catch them on The O.C. on 12/23!

Daron: The new album still has that, it is just not in the majority on the record, Brad. The new album is basically just a mixture of his solo project (Ugly Cassanova) and Modest Mouse. It isn't that he is bored or anything, that is the more downbeat style of his solo stuff. Granted, it isn't as great as The Moon & Antarctica, but it is still a great record with a lot of great songs.

Sean: You obviously don't know what you're talking about, Brad. The Moon & Antartica is absolutely not their best. If anything, it's among their worst. At least, the worst of their full lengths (though I haven't heard the new one yet). Both This is a Long Drive For Someone With Nothing to Think About and Lonesome Crowded West trump it, easy.

Phil: First of all, Sean's right: Modest Mouse has done far better albums than their last two. Like I said, I enjoy the new record well enough, but I skip certain songs just about every time I play it. In my opinion, a record has to be solid from start to finish to qualify as best of the year, and I can't say that about Good News. But Daron is also right: they've always copped the Pixies first and foremost. Built To Spill always reminded me of modern classic rock (or conversely, classic modern rock).

Cory: Now Modest Mouse just sound like what I thought they were to begin with: a crappy band. I've never found any of their stuff compelling, especially not a plate of refuse like this.

Bryan: I'm with you Cory, I find Modest Mouse to be mediocre at best. Not my cup of tea. Bland rock music. Nothing in it that really jumps out at me and demands my attention.

Bill: I have never heard any Modest Mouse music, the crappy name puts me off. I mean, can a mouse actually be modest?

Jim: Cory's elimination of Modest Mouse has been upheld. I thought there would be more support for this record, but then I remembered Wade wasn't participating this year. Modest Mouse survived an elimination attempt in a previous edition, and they definitely don't deserve a second get out of jail free card.

Adam Strohm's Elimination

Bryan: This is also what I thought on my first listen, so I can understand where you're coming from. But, the more I listened to this album the more shaded and interesting it became. The musical twists are amazing, the parts fit together seamlessly (much like how they do on Sonic Youth's albums), and the vocals are still shiver inducing (though lyrically vapid). Listening to the guys reminds me of being young and hearing my Mom's Psychedelic Furs records in the car. Gauzy, stylish and musically kicking!! Needless to say, I love it. Anyway, I'm not too surprised this has been booted off by Mr. Avant-Garde. That's cool. Yin and Yang.

Daron: What I have heard of the new record seemed ever better than the first. It wouldn't be in my top 3, but I think it should remain on THE LIST!

Jim: I agree with Adam that Interpol's lyrics are awkward, and it's one of the big problems I have with the band despite begrudgingly liking them. "The subway is a porno" from "NYC" on the first album kind of encapsulates how I feel about the band. First, that's a terrible, amateurish metaphor, essentially not supported or expounded upon by the rest of the lyrics. However, it's still a metaphor, and it does a pretty good job of depicting the City, despite how clumsy the language is. In many ways, Antics has the same problems, but is even more unrefined. "We ain't going to the town, we're going to the city." Geez, Louise, that's terrible.

Bill: That description makes Interpol (whom I have never heard) sound like a US Franz Ferdibland (whom I regret to say I have heard) and on that basis alone I would have to agree with Interpol's dispersal.

Bryan: You're right on Jim, the lyrics are pretty bad. But, when placed inside the template of things that make up the band, they somehow fit. Like that shade of dog crap brown that brings together a painting or the spice of bitter that kicks up the sour patch kids a notch. Would they be better with some great lyrics? Sure. Does it really matter that much in the end? Nah. It's all about the atmosphere with Interpol. Any messages are and should be obscured by the monolithic grandiosity that is Interpol. They are superstars in much the same way (though of course much less wide reaching) that Nirvana were superstars. Have you ever read Cobain's lyrics? They're totally 4th grade stuff. So lame on paper. But, when he screeched them out of his cancerous stomach, they meant something. I contend that when Paul Banks slips those lyrics though his super cool larynx in his totally hip way, it lends stupid lyrics credence in much the same way. Anyway, I think that the songs are great on Antics and that Interpol is a great band. I think they'll continue to play awesome shows and appeal to awesome slightly goth Cure fans for years to come. What I'm saying is, I think these guys don't belong on the fakejazz list.

Adam: As fakejazz's reigning Mr. Avant Garde, I'd just like to mention that Interpol stink because they're a rock band. I actually thought their last one was okay, I just think this one's lowered the bar a bit. Sure, it's not horrible, but it's definitely not album of the year material. Should something remain on the list even when the person who nominated it agrees that it's lyrically vapid? I rest my case.

Sean: Yes. Not necessarily, but I don't think that's an immediate disqualifying factor with music. Lyrics are touchy, and just because one band's lyrics are better than anothers doesn't mean that one of the bands is automatically better than the other. I like Morrissey's lyrics way more than Interpol's, but I like Interpol more than I like The Smiths.

This is one of the most extreme examples that I could come up with, and I use it because a lot of people would put The Smiths in their all time "Best of" lists, whereas few would put Interpol on. But that fact doesn't make my opinion of the two bands' music any less valid. Just less popular.

Lyrics just aren't as important to some people (like me). I mean, most lyrics aren't that great when inspected. Get over it.

Bryan: It should remain because Interpol is SO DECIDEDLY NOT ABOUT THE LYRICS!

Daron: I completely agree.

Jim: Is it only about the production, then?

Bryan: No, Interpol is all about the "coolness" of the music mixed with the "hipness" of the voice. It's a cool hip marriage made in heaven. So hip, so cool.

Jim: In other words, the production.

Gil: The fact that response to Interpol's sophomore effort has been so underwhelming says it all about this band. Was the nomination out of a sense of obligation to feed those ravenous hype machines put into Interpol's service before they stall and starve? Interpol's moment is over. and I don't see any flags flying at half-mast. In other news, Kitchen of Distinction reissues came out in '04. Vindication!

Bryan: I'm not too concerned about the hype machine for these guys. They'll do just fine. I just love this album. It's much more of a statement than the first record (which was a bit too much like their influences for my taste). Anyway, who cares what the stodgy music critics think. I love this record.

Sean: I'm really tired of reading critiques of bands that include mentions of the hype surrounding them. Can we grow up and deal with the fact that music is a business in today's world and some bands have money behind them and some don't, but that that doesn't necessarily mean one is better than the other? Please? I know it's not going to happen, and we'll continue to have new versions of the Interpol, Sunburned Hand of the Man, and Joanna Newsom "hype machine" discussions, but they're just so tired and beside the point. You don't have to prove that you're smarter than marketing. Just ignore it.

Andy: Thank you, Sean.

Jim: Adam's elimination of Interpol has been upheld. It is a good modern rock record in a steaming sea of mediocre ones (and worse). However, I don't really hear the progression Bryan hears. I just hear more of the same, but with a blanker blank stare.

Sean Hammond's Elimination

Bryan: But if you're not into rap, how can you judge?

Robin: Perhaps he is comparing it to other rap records that we all know Sean has in his collection, you condescending troglodyte.

Daron: Sean, don't undercut your opinion, I have seen you listen to more R&B and rap than anyone else I know. I know you enjoyed quite a bit last year when I saw you more regularly. Yes, they aren't genres you are into a lot, but you aren't completely dismissive of them either.

Sean: I didn't say that. You're confusing me with Robin. I think it's fine for you to have an opinion on something you know next to nothing about. I just don't think you can be an authority.

As Daron said, I actually have liked some rap/hip hop (though, no R&B) in the recent past. So, I'm not making a 100% blind judgment. But, I'm not trying to fool anybody here. I'm not a rap/hip hop fan, there are just a few exceptions. Kanye isn't one of them.

Aim your hostility about this somewhere else. I'm pretty sure you can find better things to attack me about.

Robin: Thanks Sean, you fucking pantywaist. It was obviously a jab at me. Bryan, man, your credibility is suffering.

Bryan: I was just trying to point out that of course you have the right not to like the Kanye. I don't either. Just because you don't know everything about and artist doesn't mean that you have no right to take it off the list. At least that's what I think.

Daron: That is totally true. On VH-1's THE LIST, not having ever heard of something was a very common reason to take something off the list. It was also just a good reason to argue against it.

Gil: Bryan, you just haven't listened to the Kanye album enough. You should spend a few days doing nothing but, let it sink in. I'm sure you'll enjoy it then.

Adam: The Kanye album's not bad. I wouldn't have eliminated it, but I also don't like it enough to argue stridently against its elimination. This comment might as well have never existed.

Gil: What's not to love about sped-up Chaka Khan samples? Even the whitest whiteboy should be able to relate to the sheer joy of the music. Kanye's a clever lyricist. the jam with Jamie Foxx and Twista rules. But, oh, all those skits. why, Kanye, why? Is there some irony at work here that I'm just missing? Still, it's a good album (the unreleased version especially), deserving of a place in THE LIST.

Sean: Maybe so. Dumb music always seems to make it through to the end each year...

Andy: Gil, do what I do and just program out the skits. The album flows muuuuch better.

Phil: I must applaud Jim for including the Kanye West album. I absolutely hated everything Kanye did at first, but somehow the unreleased version of that album won me over in a big way, and now I can really appreciate College Dropout as a solid record apart from those bothersome anti-education skits. Anti-intellectualism is big these days, or so I hear.

Jim: Is Madvillian an exception, Sean? Maybe you should, at least to the extent of listening to song samples on AMG, determine which of the two rap records you like least. Otherwise, you're just reacting to the fact that you heard Kanye before on the cell phone commercial.

Sean:I haven't seen the cell phone commercial, as far as I'm aware. Madvillain isn't an exception, I just didn't know what that was. Which I guess means I should have aimed my nomination there. Oh well. If you want to veto my elimination, I'll nominate Madvillain. If I get the chance, I'll find some song samples too.

Phil: I can't believe one of my nominees could get picked because Kanye got 10 Grammy nods.

Jeff: Any chick that gets 10 Grammy nominations doesn't belong on THE LIST.

Jim: Thanks for embracing your old fogey status.

Jeff: Old fogeys never die... they just start writing for fakejazz. I'll take that as a "yes, she's been eliminated."

Adam: Ummm... Kanye West is a guy.

Jim: As much as I'd like Jamie Foxx to couple his Oscar with a nomination on THE LIST, I guess I will let the Kanye West elimination stand. I don't think Madvillian is any more deserving of being there, but neither really deserves the token rap nod that Outkast and The Streets have gotten previously.

Phil: Madvillain is eminently more deserving than any rap or hip-hop album in the past 5 years, including the highly-overrated Outkast debacle and Streets dance record. I know it's asking a lot to believe that a bunch of noise and psych-folk freaks might be even remotely familiar with what constitutes an extraordinary rap or hip-hop performance, but this album is so overwhelmingly original in its style and execution that its inclusion should go without saying. I can see where Kanye would suffer the inevitable popularity backlash on THE LIST, but Madvillain is top notch and will be looked upon as a watershed in "underground" music for many years to come.

Pete: You can see the future?

Phil: No, but I can hear it.

Jim: You're right, Streets wasn't any more deserving. But, just like Madvillain, it only really made it through cause few here really know what it is. The Madvillain record is good enough, but it's not even the best Madlib related album of the past 5 years (the Quasimoto album beats it easily).

Sean: I think that a better way of phrasing this would be that he was popular enough that I didn't have to go out of my way to figure out that I don't like it. His profile was high enough that I could hear his music without trying to. I'm not lashing out against those who got popular.

Jeff Penczak's Elimination

Daron: People said the same thing about abstract art. Both are wrong.

Adam: I wish the Comets on Fire disc were that abrasive, Jeff... then it might actually be good. As is, it's pretty standard fare, nothing too exciting.

Sean: Yeah, I've gotta agree. As much as I love Comets on Fire, the new one just didn't do it for me in a "best of the year" kinda way. I mean, I like it ok, but it doesn't live up to so many other records this year.

Daron: I think it is a very good record, but not one I would put at the top of my list. However, I was just fighting against someone saying that they were "talentless noisemongers." That just shows a lack of listening or comprehension. Maybe not your cup of tea, but they are a hell of a lot more talented than most, and definitely more than the Donnas.

Bryan Daron, it's a good thing that you know everything. What would we do if you weren't here to set us straight? You're like a God or something.

Daron: Yes, I do know I am right with this. I have seen Comets play, and I know they are very talented. Maybe someone doesn't like them, and that I understand. But to say their aren't talented is just incorrect.

Bryan: But, isn't that because everyone's talented? I mean, everyone's got some talent. This is getting off topic here (for the record, I think that Comets on Fire record is pretty freaking good, though not totally great) but I think what people are really saying with the whole "untalented" mumbo jumbo is that the talent used to make the music that doesn't appeal to them is seemingly much less than the talent used to make music that they like. Ha ha, awesome sentence. Anyway, I don't pretend to know that people are "wrong". They are right for them, wrong for you (and I for that matter). Ignore this, I'm making no sense.

Daron: Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't mean they have no talent. It means they make something (art or music or whatever) that said person doesn't like. To say you don't like it, is true. To say they have no talent is wrong. If he just meant that they made music he didn't like, that is true. To say they aren't talented is wrong. Simple as that.

Bryan: You're right. I was just saying that the back and forth (Comets on Fire has no talent... No! The Donna's have no talent!!) was a bit unfair. But you're right. It's not fair to call anyone untalented. They all have talent. How we perceive the talent, however, is up for debate.

Daron: Yes, totally. I mean, Comets on Fire show more talent in musicianship, or how they can handle their instruments, but maybe that is because the Donnas don't care about that even though they can, and they are showing more talent in pop song structure... which Comets on Fire don't show as much talent for (possibly because they don't write that style). I agree. I just didn't like that they were called talentless, when it obviously isn't true. Good argument.

Jeff: Daron, I was just making a comment that the trax I've heard off the album (more than half) all sound like the same thing over and over again—someone scraping sheets of metal up and down their guitar strings. This may be talent, but my 16 year old daughter gets better sounds (at least I can detect a rudimentary melody line) out of her guitar and she just started playing 6 months ago. I'll tell her how "talented" you think she sounds. It'll boost her ego even more.

P.S. I completely agree that the new Donnas LP sucks eggs big time. Who ever thought that locking them in the same room as Avril's producer was a good thing should be drawn and quartered... then taken out back and shot.

Gil: I co-sign re: Blue Cathedral. Good, not great. They've done—and will do—better. The live CDR/LP blows away the Sub Pop disc. Was that '03?

Bill: Blue Cathedral is a courageous release, eschewing the psych-out of the previous two releases for some gentler, melodic psych; a deliberate and self-confessed attempt to "keep things interesting." However courageous it may be, Blue Cathedral is nonetheless let down immeasurably by a strangely feeble production— the tunes stumble and slide where they should really soar. I did really want to like this record, but admit I have ended up being ambivalent. I am sure there are some great songs in there somewhere, desperate to escape, and the live shows did do them justice, apparently. But Blue Cathedral is disappointing document.

Jeff: In general I'm on board with the Buzzcocks: "Noise Annoys." Probably why I don't "get" or like the noise that Comets on Fire make. Sorry for inferring they were talentless. Let me revise my post to say they're a talented bunch of noisemakers and the album sounds like Times Square on New Year's Eve. For some, that may be a good thing. It just makes me want to reach for the Excedrine.

Sean: I can't believe that the noise debate is in any way aimed at Comets on Fire. They're an amped up Hendrix. They're not noise. They are people playing guitar riffs and solos and a dude playing an oscillator. There is very little element of noise in Comets... I'm baffled! Wolf Eyes, yes, of course, let's talk about noise again with them, but Comets on Fire? What the fuck? Did I hear a different record?

Steve: I'm not sure that the Buzzcocks really meant to imply that noise annoys. Check it out. The "noise annoys" stuff is attributed to parents, and we all know what parental opinion amounts to in the land of Rock...

Jeff: Maybe I should have distinguished between the genre of "noise" and the cacophony of sounds resulting in unstructured sound collages that I hear when I listened to the Comets' disk. Amped up Hendrix? OK. But I consider 10 minutes of wanking off and playing his guitar with his Sean to be "noise" not music, which I prefer to take me from point A to point B to point C in that order. Call me goofy or old fashioned, but the Comets tracks I heard didn't have any melodies or direction - they just sounded like bombastic mounds of metallic shards scraping together in ear-piercing shrieks. I don't hear any "songs" in there.

Sean: You are goofy. You are old-fashioned.

Daron: Maybe you did hear a different disc then, or pick a song to listen to that was out of the norm of the rest of the album. It sounds more like you are describing Wolf Eyes to me.

Gil: Jeff, I'm with the Newsom-lovers on this one. Comets on Fire equals noise? No matter how you define or customize "noise," WHUH? Blue Cathedral is no more a shrapnel bomb of discordant sound than Vincebus Eruptum, or any tortuous Cipollina or Saloman solo. Ben Chasny's even in there, playing acoustic, fer fuxake! Are you sure you didn't get your Sub Pop promos mixed up? I could take my pick of our heroes here. Deke Leonard, Mike Patto, Richard Thompson, etc., all stand accused of crimes for which you'd see Comets on Fire thrown to the wolves.

But speaking of the Bevis Frond, as die-hard fans you and I should be extremely wary of making inflammatory statements like this. Or the whole ugly mess is likely to blow up in (y)our face faster than you can say "Tangerine Infringement Beak."

Jim: As much as Jeff's elimination of Comets on Fire is complete nonsense and probably based on some other record he thought was Comets on Fire, no one has really come to their defense either. So their elimination stands.

Jeff: Since I'm relatively new and was playing the game without knowing the rules about eliminations, can I appeal to the judges to withdraw/change my elimination on the following grounds:

1. I'm a stupid old fogey who doesn't know the rules.
2. I technically didn't eliminate Comets on Fire, but apparently was thinking of the Wolf Eyes record.
3. It doesn't seem fair to Comets on Fire fans to have their selection eliminated in error.

Jim: Nice Rumsfeld impression. "It's too early in the morning." "I didn't hear the first part of your question." Since you participated last year, I don't think they "not knowing the rules" thing can be used. Your elimination wasn't much more random than Sean's, to tell you the truth. Maybe you really were thinking of Comets on Fire? Who's to say?

I added both items in question and like Comets on Fire a lot more, but I'd still rather not start handing out do-overs.

Nick: Don't you dare eliminate Smile. He may sound a bit old but the record is pristine. Other than his voice (which doesn't particularly bother me) it sounds like it was found in a time capsule.

Jeff: And like all good time capsules, it should be buried and never heard from again.

Bryan Colesby's Elimination

Adam: Though I applaud the verve of Bryan's dismissal, I think his final thoughts are indication enough of why Wolf Eyes should remain on the list. An indictment of a whole genre in the form of this elimination is appropriate, of course, but hardly enough for the moderator of this discussion to remove Burned Mind from contention. "The Emperor's New Clothes" seems like an odd analogy to make with respect to a band who's been around (in some form or another) for something like 8 years, and released more CDs, CDRs, and LPs than many bands do in a multi-decade career. Sure, they're new to the general public, but I think that Bryan's frustration at noise being one of the new big things, so to say, is coloring his opinion with respect to some of the music, and the same could be said of Joanna Newsom and new weird whatever. Let's not let one man's grumpiness ruin it for the rest of us.

Pete: I don't think by "Emperor's New Clothes" the implication intended is that they haven't put out a lot of records, but that there is no real substance to the records and that people are liking it simply because other people (possibly importantly Sonic Yuth) are saying it's good (the emperor says he is wearing clothes so everyone agrees). I think that Bryan's problem isn't just that it "is the new big thing," just that he sees no quality underneath this particular new big thing (which, yes, is one of many new big things). Also, I tend to agree with him.

Bryan: It's true, I am a grumpy Gus... but let me go a little deeper into my thought processes if I may. I definitely do seem to judge things before I hear them based on the press I read (and I read a lot of music mags) and the "word on the street" as it were. But any negative connotations are quickly overcome if the music is to my liking. I don't pretend to ignore the hype, but I'd say it's probably about 10% of what I make my value judgments on. I can cite many cases where any previous misgivings were overcome by the sheer quality of the music. Interpol, The Strokes, Vetiver, PG Six, Sunburned Hand of the Man (I like them live at least), Nirvana... the list goes on... were all bands that I had disdain for until I heard them.

The reason I go into this is because Adam's making it sound like I haven't heard Wolf Eyes. I assure you I have. Don't like it. Plus, I don't like many other bands at the forefront of the genre (including Lightning Bolt, who I was hip to way back in '98 or '99 I might add). It's just not my cup of tea. Aside from that, the hype totally makes me grumpy. Anyway, if the reason for leaving this on the list is because I'm making an uninformed decision you have to leave it on. I've listened to Wolf Eyes. Seen them live. Don't like it.

Adam: I'm not using Wolf Eyes' history as a rebuttal to the "Emperor's New Clothes" statement on it's own. Wolf Eyes have a rich enough history, and, while I can't deny that there are lots of new fans of the band that were brought in through Sonic Youth, I think that there was definitely a strong enough fanbase beforehand to validate (if that's how we want to do things) their music sufficiently. Being the person who nominated this disc, I can say that who their fans are and why they're fans matters far less to me than the actual music, which I think speaks for itself. The idea that there's little substance speaks more towards a difference in philosophy than Wolf Eyes music itself, I think.

Pete: I guess that was unclear, since your recounting of their 8 year history came directly after mentioning the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy—seemed exactly like a rebuttal to the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy. Just sayin'

Adam: I understand. My comment wasn't unrelated to Bryan's completely, but I wasn't aiming to use their history as a standalone rebuttal, either. I wasn't clear in what my reference to their history was meant to communicate, namely, the number and dedication of their fanbase long before any Sonic Youth/Sub Pop/etc. explosion.

Daron: Wolf Eyes have been around for over 8 years, and have had a large fanbase for years. That obviously proves they aren't only liked because of Sonic Youth, since that only happened this last year. I also think that the dismissal of an entire genre (or multiple genres as he has done), shows that his opinion is too biased to be considered seriously by the judge.

Bryan: Uh, isn't this all about bias? Of course I'm biased, I have opinions. Stuff sounds good, stuff sounds bad.

One more thing just to clarify. I am totally fine with other people being into Wolf Eyes. I think that's great! I believe that they have an appeal to an obviously pretty wide group of people. Good for them. You guys should fight to keep them on. Just don't use me as the reason to keep them on. I'm only expressing my opinion that I don't like them. Given the choices, I found them to be the worst of the crop (or at least the worst of the stuff that I have had any exposure to). You may think my opinion is wrong, but this opinion is mine and is right for me.

Anyway, defend them based on the music, not on my "bias", which is actually just a value judgment based on my reaction to the music. I have no issues with them being "legit" and having a homegrown fanbase (I don't even have issues with the fanbase actually) and I don't think they're bandwagoners at all. "Emperor's New Clothes" to me means that they are all surface with nothing underneath, which is my reaction to the music because I can't see any value in it, though I can fully appreciate that others might. I have a slight issue with the hype (which I always do because I'm cynical but which factors little into my judgment of the music's value), but for the most part I just don't like Wolf Eyes... and, sure, I don't like noise music. Sorry if that's too "biased" or "radical" or whatever. I can't help it. At least I've taken the time to thoughtfully consider their music, having seen them live and having listened to Burned Mind. Defend the music. Maybe Jim will keep it!! I mean, it's not fake folk. It's got a shot!

Robin: Didn't we have this same discussion last year? Bryan doesn't like noise. I don't like drone, but I'm not about to eliminate Landing's Sphere. Wolf Eyes deserves to remain on THE LIST not because they are legitimate, not because they have history, but because Burned Mind is an expansive record. They've managed to make these organic instruments and the seeming cacophony into music. If you listen to this record more than once without dismissing it, the music dawns on you like an epiphany. One other thing, just because they've gone on SubPop hasn't changed their accessibility, obviously. At least their integrity is still intact.

Bryan: I wish people would stop assuming that I don't like noise because I haven't heard it enough. That argument holds no water. I just don't like it, it's not for me. Why does it have to appeal to everyone? It just doesn't. If you don't like Sphere, take it off. That has nothing to do with whether or not Burned Mind should stay on.

Please, stop saying that I haven't heard this album enough. How many times do I have to subject myself to it before I can say I don't like it? Is there some arbitrary rule or something? Am I breaking the indie code of ethics. I don't like it no matter how many times I hear it. Sorry.

Daron: I think Robin's had two parts. 1. People like what they like. You don't like noise, she doesn't like drone. 2. Her saying why she thinks Wolf Eyes should stay on. This is obviously directed to people that weren't discussed in the first section. She knows you don't like noise and that you aren't changing, just like she knows she wont be buying or enjoying any Stars of the Lid in the future.