Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

one of the most freeing things you can do as a music fan is stop ranking and listing and reading that. I full on stopped that last year and I’m much happier for it. The incessant need to rank is trash.
I hate ranking when it's pitting bands against eachother. End of year lists are exhausting and not worth anyone's time. However, I do find some solace in ranking an individual artist's body of work. It helps me clear my mind surrounding what I enjoy or perhaps what is a blind spot that needs more listens. I don't rank to hate, but to explore.
 
Steve Hyden is a blasphemer, trading in 90's nostalgia in exactly the way that would have gotten him strung up by his balls in the decade he mines for content.
He is slightly older than me and from the Midwest. I find him very relatable and an excellent writer. I also enjoy many of the same artists he has recommended over the years. I’ve read three of his books and am looking forward to his new book on Bruce Springsteen. I don’t understand how or why people find him upsetting nothing he says or does is insulting or condescending or otherwise controversial he is a white dude in his early 40s who enjoys guitar based rock music.

Do you feel the same about Chuck Klosterman and/or Andy Greenwald?

Klosterman literally wrote the book on the subject.
IMG_2701.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I hate ranking when it's pitting bands against eachother. End of year lists are exhausting and not worth anyone's time. However, I do find some solace in ranking an individual artist's body of work. It helps me clear my mind surrounding what I enjoy or perhaps what is a blind spot that needs more listens. I don't rank to hate, but to explore.
I get that.

My method is I make artist playlists, put all their albums/eps/singles and hit shuffle. I discover new faves out of context sometimes.

I do believe a great piece of music criticism can make you reconsider without a list.
 
Its not how he writes - its that he chooses to "market" the things that should have been left to the garbage bin of history.
I have no respect for his slathering of songs like "Pretty Fly for a White Guy" or "Only Wanna Be With You" in 90s nostalgia.

They were obvious label money grabs forced down our throats in the 90s.
When he wraps himself in his "child of the 90" BS and tries to reconstitute the old garbage into a witty or thought provoking "think piece" he either: a) proves himself complicit with the machine: or b) proves himself be too stupid to understand the irony of what he is doing.

Either way - it makes me want to punch someone to think that we came all this way to get another corporate hack packaged as "pop culture" shilling the same shit all this time later.
See the problem here is generational, these “label money grabs” forced down my throat were not seen that way amongst a large swath of people my age growing up. We enjoyed Hootie and Offspring and the like and while it’s obvious now as adults what these things were not to the same level as Pearl Jam or Guided By Voices; when I was a dumb kid I had no issue keeping my Pavement albums next to my Marylin Manson, Hootie and The Blowfish, and Snoop Dogg albums in my CD flip case. Most of what he is writing about when he is covering that stuff isn’t to say that it’s good music it’s to say that it had a place and was very popular and to acknowledge the reasons why that was the case is interesting.

I make playlists of bad late 80s early 90s adult contemporary music that they played on the radio when I was growing up. I make playlist of terrible 70s Yacht rock and playlist of music booming out of frat houses at the turn of the millennia. it all has a place.

It’s no different than someone waxing nostalgically about Poison or Motley Crue or Cinderella. The difference is Steve is about a decade younger than you.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty depressing to me that probably the most read and most stably employed rock critic today mostly writes listicles.
Not a single listicle to be found in any of these…
IMG_2702.jpeg


Also, I feel like in the day and age we live he uses the list format more as an attention grabbing device than anything usually every entry on his list contain several paragraphs of explanation. It’s not like Buzzfeed AI generated content where the list is the all that is being offered up. Steve usually writes a ton for each entry.
 
Last edited:
Who does he even write for? I think all I’ve read was Twilght of the Gods which I very much enjoyed.
Currently Uproxx
But he wrote a ton back in the day on AV Club when it was still worth reading.
 
I hate ranking when it's pitting bands against eachother. End of year lists are exhausting and not worth anyone's time. However, I do find some solace in ranking an individual artist's body of work. It helps me clear my mind surrounding what I enjoy or perhaps what is a blind spot that needs more listens. I don't rank to hate, but to explore.
I think context matters a lot. I like ranking things to generate discussion and debate plus it provokes internal deliberation on what I like and dislike about artists, albums l, and songs. I enjoy stimulating my brain regarding things a care about and would rather spend time pondering which Sonic Youth album I enjoy more than deciding how many people I need to take call during a given time frame or if I should order a new pack of t-shirts as my current supply of undershirts is getting a bit shabby.
 
And has such incredibly shitty musical taste.
He really doesn’t though.




 
I get that.

My method is I make artist playlists, put all their albums/eps/singles and hit shuffle. I discover new faves out of context sometimes.

I do believe a great piece of music criticism can make you reconsider without a list.

Yep and the best album reviews don’t need numbers or stars. The text lets you know how worthy of your attention it is, or isn’t.
 
He is slightly older than me and from the Midwest. I find him very relatable and an excellent writer. I also enjoy many of the same artists he has recommended over the years. I’ve read three of his books and am looking forward to his new book on Bruce Springsteen. I don’t understand how or why people find him upsetting nothing he says or does is insulting or condescending or otherwise controversial he is a white dude in his early 40s who enjoys guitar based rock music.

Do you feel the same about Chuck Klosterman and/or Andy Greenwald?

Klosterman literally wrote the book on the subject.
View attachment 197239

I read Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs and Fargo Rock City.
I have not read this book.
Rather than a "music critic" I lump Klosterman into the category of essayist.

I am unfamiliar with Mr. Greenwald's musical critique, taste or writing.
 
He really doesn’t though.





He has Impossible Germany at #6. Anything higher than 1000 is too high.

No Evil Urges in the top 25 - and not 1 but 2 Waterfalls cuts ahead of that?

I rest my case your honor.
 
Its not how he writes - its that he chooses to "market" the things that should have been left to the garbage bin of history.
I have no respect for his slathering of songs like "Pretty Fly for a White Guy" or "Only Wanna Be With You" in 90s nostalgia.

They were obvious label money grabs forced down our throats in the 90s.
When he wraps himself in his "child of the 90" BS and tries to reconstitute the old garbage into a witty or thought provoking "think piece" he either: a) proves himself complicit with the machine: or b) proves himself be too stupid to understand the irony of what he is doing.

Either way - it makes me want to punch someone to think that we came all this way to get another corporate hack packaged as "pop culture" shilling the same shit all this time later.

Also - I feel the same way - only angrier and more likely to make the "someone" being punched an innocent animal when it comes to Rob Harvilla.
 
Also - I feel the same way - only angrier and more likely to make the "someone" being punched an innocent animal when it comes to Rob Harvilla.
Had to look him up. Ah, the 60 Songs That Explain The 90s guy. I don’t have any issues with him either. I have listened to a few episodes and it was entertaining enough.

I am starting to think that if we met IRL you’d wanna punch me too. Which is fine as you wouldn’t be the first, I tend to come off as extremely punchable to many.
 
Had to look him up. Ah, the 60 Songs That Explain The 90s guy. I don’t have any issues with him either. I have listened to a few episodes and it was entertaining enough.

I am starting to think that if we met IRL you’d wanna punch me too. Which is fine as you wouldn’t be the first, I tend to come off as extremely punchable to many.

First - no.
Second - that is EVERYONE's first reaction to me - which is why I have no doubt we'd be fast friends....until it came time to choose which MMJ album to spin. :cool:
 
Some critics can be incredibly good writers and I still come away thinking, "But did they like it?" To me, stars provide a framework to understand where the critic's head is at overall. Stars are the starting point, not a replacement for the writing itself.

I suppose the stars to me are in the abstract. The writing provides the framework and rationale as to whether I think like it or not. It’s also worth finding good reviewers whose writing styles speak to you because there are so many shit ones.
 
Not a single listicle to be found in any of these…
View attachment 197240


Also, I feel like in the day and age we live he uses the list format more as an attention grabbing device than anything usually every entry on his list contain several paragraphs of explanation. It’s not like Buzzfeed AI generated content where the list is the all that is being offered up. Steve usually writes a ton for each entry.
I'm aware that he's written books. I read the Radiohead one and thought it was fine. I just find the "All of ____'s songs, ranked" to be very cynical and shallow. I don't particularly enjoy his writing or find him very insightful, even though our taste does overlap quite a bit. Uproxxx is perhaps also the least user-friendly, advertisement-heavy website I've ever seen, which doesn't help.
 
Some critics can be incredibly good writers and I still come away thinking, "But did they like it?" To me, stars provide a framework to understand where the critic's head is at overall. Stars are the starting point, not a replacement for the writing itself.
This is the thing that I feel is lost with social media today. I see a lot of posts where people hate of writers or publication for committing the crime of not liking something that someone else enjoys. I was on the Sonic Youth subreddit and there was a page of people dancing on the grave of Pitchfork because they dared to give one of SY’s lesser albums a 6.8 (and TBH, they gave another arguably one of their worst albums a 0.0). It’s wild, pitchfork LOVES Sonic Youth and has done more to promote the band then probably any other major publication over the past 20 years but because they did give all their albums 10s they are clearly trash and should burn in hell.
 
Back
Top