News

New consensus on Wavves Meltdown in Barcelona: Who cares?

10:36 p.m. · June 9, 2009 · by Ethan Stanislawski

As it turns out, the internet hype machine backlash cycle has repeated itself so often that we are now starting to see a kind of meta-backlash against the entire institution. Case in point, Andrzej Lukowski's, excellent, savage analysis of the fallout for Wavves' meltdown in Barcelona on Drowned in Sound. Lukowski points out that the initial controversy was spearheaded by Ryan Schreiber, whose unusually long news post on Nathan Williams's behavior at the Primavera Sound Festival meant that all major online-only music publications had to respond in kind. Of course, this is not the first time Pitchfork has derided a band that they were primarily responsible for promoting. Instead: Lukowski points out a key omitted detail: how many people in the world actually give a crap about Wavves?:

Unlike Susan Boyle or Elvis, Nathan Williams isn’t famous. The odds of his presence on the bill influencing anybody’s decision to attend Primavera are virtually nil...And the event was nothing. Obscure musician plays poor show. Fairly humdrum drugs involved. Woo.

Considering how few print publications outside the music press have even mentioned Wavves, it's certainly a valid question. At least one print music journalist—Miles Raymer of the Chicago Reader—got the memo, even if he posted it on the Reader's blog. Raymer adds a rather smart Miranda July reference to the discussion:

It's not like Wavves moves Soulja Boy units or anything. As I understand it you can sum up this part of Lukowski's argument thusly: ))<>((

Keep in mind that print journalists still have to cover Britney Spears whenever she's in town, so there are worse fates for a music writer.

While no one likes to say they only read Pitchfork, even the site's founder seems blissfully unaware of the full extent of Pitchfork's influence. In its tone and length,  Schreiber's rant on Wavves strikingly resembles Pitchfork's rant on Billy Corgan's 20th anniversary tour. Through Pitchfork's lens, howeverit's almost impossible to distinguish between the importance of a mulit-platinum recording artist whose career spans three decades and that of a 22-year-old who made an album on his laptop. When Pitchfork covers it, other sites like Drowned in Sound, the Chicago Reader's music blog—and Prefix Magazine—have to cover it too if they want to be seen as "with it." All of a sudden, the ))<>(( metaphor makes sense.

DiScuss: Is this News? - Yours Truly, Indie Mob [Drowned in Sound]
Don't call it a backlash [Chicago Reader]