Blogs

FUCKING STOP!!!! We get it. The Observer loves Radiohead. How many more posts about this boring overrated band do we have to endure? They make boring white people think that they are listening to something experimental and artistic.

If someone just started reading this blog two weeks ago, he or she might think the sole purpose of it is to write about the Old 97s, Mount Righteous, and Radiohead.

Let's see...15 combined posts on those three bands (including Good Fridays and Playbacks)...out of 87 total in the past two weeks...

...carry the two...

That's a whopping 17 percent dedicated to two bands in the news and one who's participating in a new feature of ours.

Shocking, I know.

I was at both, and I enjoyed Dallas more. The Woodlands is pretty and all, and the parking was free, but the crowd was a bit more alive in Dallas...definitely louder between encores. I loved both set lists, but the Dallas show just seemed to have more energy. I sang along more in Houston, while in Dallas I was mostly staring in awe!

Pete shut up and read this again:

Pete, first of all, let's lose the term "local music".

For the longest time, the word "local" has been code to describe musical acts who will never amount to anything but existing as a regional curiosity. Dozens of our artists have gone on to sell literally millions of CDs and many of them have toured all over the world. The word "local" is not only redundant and beneath them, it cheapens their achievements and reduces the perception of our collective music community as insignificant. Local bands play at restaurants and high school proms. Our recording artists play all over the world. (When Erykah Badu gets back from her tour of Russia, I dare you to call her a "local" artist to her face.)

Next, let's drop the pretense and just tell it like it is. You are a 23-year-old kid from Colorado. You aren't teaching us anything about our music community that we don't already know. More accurately, we've taught you everything that you now know. It's a ridiculous dynamic, and the result, as evidenced in the current issue, is that other more experienced writers like Robert Wilonsky are now having to contribute more material in an obvious effort to re-establish credibility to the music section of the paper.

Third, lose the territorial pissing. No one cares if you happen to think that you were the first to write about anything, because we all know you haven't been here long enough to speak with any measure of historical perspective or authority. If you were the "first" to write about anything, it's only because you were the first to cut-and-paste it from somewhere else.

The "critique" of Quick's Award Show was pathetic. If it was really as pointless as you reported, why was it even worth writing about? Awards exist for one reason - so the sponsor can lay some claim to being the "official" voice of authority for that particular branch of the creative community. The Dallas Observer sacrificed that credibility when they hired a kid from out of town to be the music editor. By writing so pithily about the Quick Awards Show, you inadvertently validated their efforts and exposed your paper as feeling threatened by their existence.

All of this taken into consideration, perhaps it is more appropriate to lay the blame at the feet of the Observer's parent company Village Voice Media, which somehow came to the rather insulting conclusion that the paper was better off with an inexperienced outsider as the music editor, rather than promoting one of the many talented music writers who are already on staff. What is it, exactly, that you bring to the table that isn't already available from one of the other writers? And what did it do to morale around the office when these other, more deserving reporters were bypassed for promotion in light of your hiring? They aren't "your" writers - they were here long before you were.

If you are seriously committed to hanging around as the music editor of the Dallas Observer, then stop cut-and-pasting everything and start doing some actual research. That means asking real questions - not making vapid declarations based on information that you've gathered from other published sources.

sounds like somebody applied for the music editor position and didnt get a call back....

Hey anonymous - suck it.

I was at both shows and I have yet to pick a favorite. I loved Climbing Up The Walls and Street Spirit in Houston, but Wolf At The Door, Dollars and Cents, and Exit Music in Dallas pwned too. Lights seemed more impressive in Houston, it looked like maybe they were on the fritz last night? Security in Houston sucked balls. They made me check my camera. Dallas let me in after a quick look in my bag. I think one's impression of an audience is very subjective and variable depending on location. If there's only one douche anywhere in the vicinity it can ruin things for you, while people in the next section might have great neighbors. I think Dallas suffered from a higher douche quotient overall.

JC, "douche quotient" is my new favorite term.

I, like Merritt, have had a deep and lasting love affair with Radiohead. Getting to see them both nights was magical. I enjoyed the different sets and the light show was wicked. They have to be the most charmed people on earth. They are incapable of making bad music. And no, Jesse does not want to know what I'd do for more tickets.

OK, I didn't go to the Houston show but I've read a few posts and comments about the Dallas light show being on the "fritz." I was at the Dallas show and noticed nothing but one of the most innovative concert lighting setups I've ever seen. I was dazzled. Anybody with more details on the diff between the venues?

I was exhausted before I set foot in Starplex (ahem -- excuse me, Superpages.com) and probably didn't enjoy it as much as I would've otherwise but I think a Radiohead show in Dallas is worth covering on the Observer's music blog, so to whomever is posting as "anonymous" -- suck it -- or at least tell us your real name. If you don't want to read about Radiohead (or Mount Righteous) then don't click on the friggin' link, ya Turkey!

And oh yeah, douchbag city at the Star-(grrr...back off)plex Sunday night. I actually find a little comfort in knowing that these dudes were being exposed to some decent tunes for probably the first time in their lives.

Too soon? Too soon?

Erich,

My initial impression was that the lights didn't seem as bright in Dallas. I haven't seen anyone else say this though, so I'm starting to wonder if maybe it was a function of where I was standing for each show? I also saw the show in Bristow VA and the lights seemed brighter there too. As far as where I was for each show, Bristow=lawn (yes, it was miserable), Houston=left side row P, Dallas=pit. I can post some Houston photos on my flickr account when I get home tonight for comparison.

Here's something that maybe lends credence to the location theory of why the lights looked different to me: The lights used are apparently LEDs. LED light is very directional. It is very bright if you are in the direct path of it, but not if you are out of that light path. So maybe I was too close for the lights to look their best?

went to both shows..... didn't notice anything about the lights. I was Left row Y at Houston and Lawn in Dallas.... though was able to see half of the show in the pit.

If you've seen a better show in Dallas in the last 2 decades I would have a hard time believing you. Give me anyone... U2, GnR, Pink Floyd....

I haven't seen a band at this level live - ever.

Too bad they probably won't be here for another decade because of the 5% douchbag factor which was way more evident in Dallas than in Houston. If I recall correctly, didn't Thom get something thrown at him the last time they were in Dallas on the OK.C tour?