From:
Mike Barthel
Subject: "You Suck! White Stripes Rock!" letter #3,381
At the end of his review of the White Stripes' "Elephant," Brent DiCresenzo writes:
"People who just want some fried chicken may drive-thru and get a quick fix, but remember that underneath the spirits of the heroes are waiting for a true seance."
It's a convenient tie-up to the interesting factoid that led off the review, but I'm confused by the argument. He seems to be saying that because there are pop--or, horrors, "twee"--elements to the album, the White Stripes are as bankrupt as fast food chicken and the discerning listener (one without, ahem, "Questionable Musical Taste"--not baiting the "you guys are indie snobs!" argument there, are you Brent?) will go...what, listen to the Stooges and Robert Johnson again? This is where he loses me, and it's where the traditionalist argument always loses me. Are certain genres just dead and any attempt to revive them is morally wrong? It's an especially strange argument coming from, you know, a critic reviewing new music.
I guess I'm the wrong target for this argument anyway, since I think the idea of a Church's Chicken at The Crossroads is AWESOME. I want to go there and eat fried chicken, because fried chicken tastes good. I want to go there and piss on the shrine to Robert Johnson and form a garage-rock band with two guys and two girls wearing trucker hats and call ourselves "Robert Johnson's Blues Band" and get signed to Atlantic and get a video on MTV featuring a digitally animated picture of Robert Johnson playing guitar with us. Robert Johnson wasn't a god because he was black and poor. He was a man just like the rest of us and there's nothing served by treating him like one except traditionalists' (who--for the record--I'm not necessarily grouping Brent with, he just seems to be copping their party line) fragile senses of self-worth. C'mon, kids--what's more rock 'n' roll than a fast food joint on a holy place?
Of course, you have every right to dislike the White Stripes album--I'll admit that I wasn't so crazy about it for a week or two, although now I think it's great. And, fair enough, if you're looking for a straight blues album it won't be to your temperment, and if you think the last song is useless and cheeky instead of kind of cute and unassuming (although I know most male rock crits hate "cute" with a passion--but c'mon guys, lighten up here), and if you think Meg's drumming is naive instead of, well, naive and pretty fucking powerful, then the review makes sense, although it did seem a bit harsh for the 6.9 at the top. Still, it does look a wee bit suspicious for Pitchfork to slap down the first album after a mainstream breakthrough for an indie band, and I have a hard time seeing what justifies the over 2-point drop in rating from White Blood Cells to this. Yeah yeah yeah, different reviewers, but if Ryan saw fit to co-sign the WBC review, I have a hard time swallowing that particular argument here. Anyway, like I say, lighten up--Jack White can fuck Robert Johnson's corpse and appear on TRL for all I care, Elephant is a fun, good album that I'll be listening to for quite a while.
Sincerely,
m.
Pitchfork Review: the White Stripes: Elephant
Quit yr whinin', he says!
From:
Nick
Subject: the stripes
Okay. Enough. Brent DiCrescenzo is getting ENTIRELY too much shit for his
review of the Stripes' new joint, "Elephant". I have no idea how to send
this to the mailbag, so I'm doing the next best thing and sending it to
the editor, which would be Mr. Ryan Schreiber.
Okay, so Brent may have missed the mark a bit. I personally find it
hard to see how the Stripes could have done much better expanding as a
group while still making good music (and when you make relatively simple,
blues-based rock, that's very hard to do). However, I agree that the
Stripes (and by the Stripes I mean Jack White) did try too hard to cover
a vast array of influences. And did anybody notice that the chord
prgression on 'There's No Home For You Here' is a carbon-fucking-copy of
that on 'Dead Leaves And The Dirty Ground'? Well, it is. And it's great
that a band can have the balls to do that... but also, it's a sign that
they're running out of new things to do, and new chords to pen.
Mr. DiCrescenzo's review was so bold as to, if a bit unjustly,
point out the few flaws on the album. Granted, the review may have
concentrated too much on the negative aspects (the album does kick some
serious ass)... but, at least someone focused on them for once. All the
reviews I've read other than Brent's have been, "Awesome!", "Good Stuff",
and that shitbag of a Rolling Stone review that basically hailed the
Stripes as Jesus. And the record may indeed be awesome. However, I had a
sinking feeling while listening to it that it did not live up to its
fantastic disease-fighting predecessor (white blood cells). Brent's
review basically put into words, with a nifty Fried Chicken analogy to
boot, my fears about the album. Too harsh, perhaps. But at least Brent
had the balls to point some things out that needed to be said. I'd give
it a 7.9-8.2, but Brent's opinion is a welcome one. So stop your whining!
nick, PA
Pitchfork Review: the White Stripes: Elephant
A response from Brent DiCrescenzo.
People.
Are you nuts?
Brent DiCrescenzo is back in the game. Wow. I don't think any of you (I
refer to all who wrote any sharp comments on Elephant's review) understands
who he is. I'm afraid most of you don't even care for what Pitchfork is, you
just consider it "another site with some music reviews"... Ugh.
Ok, to put it straight:
This man is a GOD. To see his name again at the front of the most amazing
music site ever is a blessing. To read his interpretation of White Stripes
music is a miracle. To know that you can still hope for more of his essays
in the future is another miracle.
If you start any of these foolish discussions of him being a "good" or a
"bad" critic once more, I'm going to kill. Watch out then and try exploring
his genius someday. Take John Lennon's Imagine review for starters.
Thank you.
[Editor's note: Besides some minor HTML formatting, all emails we receive
are published as is-- nothing is edited for spelling, grammar,
syntax, or intellectual clarity. Names, email addresses, and/or emails
themselves may be published unless specifically requested otherwise. Be
sure to revisit your favorite reader emails of yesteryear in the rapidly
growing
mailbag archive.]
