How is objectivity even defined? What is good to someone may be bad to someone else and vice versa; I don't care for The Black Dahlia Murder but I guess objectively you could say they are pretty great just due to sheer musicianship. Diet Cig is not a complex band by any means but I don't think they are any less talented than many of the other scene bands a lot of people go nuts over. If anything, I think they could demonstrate to people who previously may have been too afraid to start a band that anyone in fact can pick up a guitar and write a song (and that is the way it should be). I just don't like using "objectivity" as a measure of a band's success or failure. It is a very slippery term, I think, and far too variable.
Wait...the argument is that the music is simple and easy to play/write so its bad? And its bad so its harmful to women in music? That's screwed up on so many levels, starting with the basic notion that music that is simple and easy to write = bad music and ending with the idea that people are elevating "bad" music on purpose even though they think it's "bad." I fucking love this band and their music and think it's really good. In some ways, this is basically a female-led Pinegrove and obviously that album received nothing but praise here and nobody was accused of liking it despite thinking it was "bad" just to prove some point.
i don't think they sound like any of the bands mentioned at all even lyrically diet cig is on like the other side of the spectrum from pinegrove hahha. even the front bottoms i don't see any lyrical comparisons
I don't really care if you don't see it, they have some pretty similar sounds. The real point is that it's total bullshit to tell someone that something they like is bad and they like it even though they think its bad, too.
I'm not sure they have a single similar sound other than drums. And even then stylistically, very different. Maid of the Mist and Tummy Ache are just structurally very similar to songs Sella wrote for Talon.
Pinegrove comparison was weird but that was absolutely not the point of the post, I think we can stop harping on it.
The Pitchfork review was unprofessional at best and downright vindictive at worst. Even if Quinn's argument has validity (which I don't believe it does, but that's certainly up for debate), she absolutely botched the delivery, and accordingly, the review reads like a poorly-written attempt to muck up the narrative surrounding this band. No album review should bring up the personal politics of the members, especially when they're completely irrelevant to the content of the record--it looks even worse for the review when she seemingly criticizes Alex's support of Black Lives Matter. The anecdote about the lighter is completely off-topic and reads like some MRA reddit manifesto, so much so that the byline completely took me by surprise. The pussy hat line is also weirdly sexist in a general sense and sticks out like a sore thumb. It's a condescending piece that clearly shouldn't have been published. Idk who the reviews editor at Pitchfork is, but if I were in that seat and that review fell on my desk, I'd toss it and reassign it. The album is fine. I'm enjoying it, but I don't think it'll have a whole lot of lasting value for me. My favorite tracks are Barf Day and Tummy Ache, so my first listen was a little underwhelming.
the review is garbage. album on the other hand is great. definitely surpassed my expectations. first few tracks really start it off right
Update: seeing them live last night made me love them even more than I already did. So much energy and so much fun. Also, they did a Yellowcard "Ocean Avenue" cover with Daddy Issues which was super random but also awesome.
Not sure I can think of another album I'm as meh on as this that has a song I adore as much as "Maid of the Mist"