« Sponsorship Opportunities | Main | Touch and Go 25th Anniversary Schedule Announced »
Posted in music on August 25, 2006
The Pipettes | Blogwash? - Chris Ott vs Pitchfork
DOWNLOAD: The Pipettes - Dirty Mind (MP3)
"I've been writing about pop music for over a decade. The bulk of my work can be found on Pitchfork, where I hung my hat between 2000 and 2004." [Chris Ott]
"In the end, We Are the Pipettes is a modern indie pop album, and a classic one at that." [Pitchfork - Best New Music]
"Like those who fawn over them, the Pipettes have talked their way into this party, and I suspect we will not notice when they have left." [Chris Ott says "Blogwash" - the Village Voice]
The photo is from here.
---
Tags:
Posted on August 25, 2006 12:48 PM
Leave a comment
Powered by Ajax Comments
« Sponsorship Opportunities | Main | Touch and Go 25th Anniversary Schedule Announced »
---
Comments (50)
pipettes are crap
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 12:54 PM
dont waste your time. they give girl singers a bad name.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 1:02 PM
this is not a good band.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 1:03 PM
As the Voice pointed out, go by some Talulah Gosh, Heavenly, Flatmates and Shop Assistants records.
Posted by Matt | August 25, 2006 1:09 PM
oh, shut up. the pipettes are amazing. they need to come to new york NOW.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 1:11 PM
That's a classic "Boob Profile" shot.
Posted by Philabuster | August 25, 2006 1:12 PM
i saw them play recently. it was fine. whatever. snooze. next.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 1:19 PM
hooray for boobies, and hot librarians, and the pipettes. regardless of the rest of the album, "your kisses are wasted on me" is one of the most infectious pop songs of the year.
Also, is it me, or did Chris Ott take the pretension up a notch in the VV article? I don't remember a lot of pop culture theory in his pitchfork writings.
Posted by fairelepipettes | August 25, 2006 1:19 PM
Anything like Bananarama?
Posted by drewo | August 25, 2006 1:20 PM
theyre no dansettes.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 1:26 PM
totally.
Posted by sam | August 25, 2006 1:28 PM
I disagree (with no one in particular).
Posted by Greg | August 25, 2006 1:39 PM
good god, who cares?
Posted by d | August 25, 2006 1:47 PM
I don't really like that band, but he seems to have a predisposition against the idea that something might be any good because it's somewhat disposable or isn't some momumental landmark that people will worship in decades time.. fun music that you like for a few months and then forget about has its place, too.
Posted by Richie | August 25, 2006 2:31 PM
you like those side boobs? well you shouldn't, because that's my side boob.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 2:45 PM
my problem with this group or any "girl group" for that matter is that the focus is more on the novelty factor that there's women playing/leading rather than on the music. It just gets under my skin, and frankly, is rather nauseating. I feel focus should always be on the music itself, rather than matching dresses or for that matter any image based/gimmick driven group-male or female
Xo- a disgruntled female musician.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 2:52 PM
i haven't listened to them, but as a female musician i hate the idea of a band with a bunch of female vocalists who don't play instruments backed up by male musicians. if you want to be in a band, unless you're the most interesting frontperson ever, learn to play an instrument.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 2:55 PM
Like Diana Ross or Ronnie Spector or Aretha Franklin. They'd be SO much better if they were lugging a bass around the whole time.
(Though Franklin plays piano, sometimes, I think. And this is not to imply the lousy Pipettes are anything more than a girl-group Spice Girls.)
Posted by J | August 25, 2006 3:13 PM
>>unless you're the most interesting frontperson ever
Totally missed this. Apologies.
Posted by J | August 25, 2006 3:15 PM
duh- they are actually making fun of most girl groups however in a way better way than most girl groups ever did when they took themselves seriously (ie spice girls, destiny's child, en vogue, go go's etc). it's party music done pretty good. it doesn't seem really grounbreaking but i bet in a dozen years at some party playing retro music, these are still the songs that get people on the floor. (kool and the gang 'celebration' style).
Posted by pg | August 25, 2006 4:15 PM
I agree. The Dansettes are better.
Posted by Anna | August 25, 2006 4:28 PM
Pipettes are way cutier.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 4:38 PM
"cutier?" cause that's important.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 5:00 PM
Three Imaginary Girls hearts The Pipettes. We just posted this review today:
http://www.threeimaginarygirls.com/pipettes06aug.asp
Posted by imaginary dana | August 25, 2006 5:06 PM
Half the album is good, the other half tested my patience. Take the bad songs out and you've got a great EP.
Posted by Glenn | August 25, 2006 5:41 PM
ugh ugh ugh. everything about them is awful. the production is awful, like late 80's awful. it just sounds so unappealing. I would much rather listen to the headcoatees who were dirty and fun.
Posted by maggie | August 25, 2006 6:09 PM
did the older looking blonde "mom" one with the short hair come in later, b/c I don't see her in this picture...unless she used to have a fatter face and brown hair
someone get fired for not being "cutier" enough?
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 6:57 PM
her name is gwenno, and she replaced an older member named julia.
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 7:30 PM
that sounds pretty sad and fairly Sugababes of them
Posted by Anonymous | August 25, 2006 7:40 PM
In response to a disgruntled female musician: You begin your comment with "my problem with this group or any 'girl group' for that matter..." but then by criticizing the focus you seem to accuse the media (traditional and otherwise) and music fans. So is it really the fault of the female members of a group? Do you claim they shoulder a responsibility to deflect that focus (e.g., by making an effort to not look so pretty)?
In response to the other female musician: Don't you think that the human voice is an instrument, in a sense, itself? Since everyone's voice is unique, wouldn't it be enough for a frontwoman (or frontman) to have a stunning voice and know how to use it? I think Neko Case as a member of The New Pornographers is a good example. She's not the frontwoman of that band, but at some points in some of their songs (which she doesn't help write, as far as I know) her vocals are front and center.
Posted by Anonymous | August 26, 2006 4:19 AM
Yes, the human voice is an instrument, and I definitely wasn't saying that all female vocalists need to go learn an instrument right now or give up. There's just something about having several female vocalists backed by male musicians that rubs me the wrong way. It sounds like the Pipettes are supposed to be a more modern, feminist girl group, or something, and I just think that could have been better accomplished by having women play the instruments behind them.
Posted by the other female musician | August 26, 2006 10:17 AM
p.s. I realize it sounds like I changed my argument. I guess I mean that in "girl groups," I think it's important for female instrumentalists to have a presence, even if some of the members only sing.
Posted by Anonymous | August 26, 2006 10:19 AM
a big problem is that none of the three girls has an exceptional voice.
they're like three back-up singers in search of a lead.
Posted by Anonymous | August 26, 2006 10:23 AM
wow, it's rather sickening reading through this pile of rubbish.
don't you remember, pop music is a form of entertainment, not art. no matter what your mind thinks.
and yeah, some of the pipettes songs are fantastic, others - not so much.
Posted by Yob | August 26, 2006 10:35 AM
I'm far from being a Pitchfork hater, but I do think they were really, really stretching by calling this album best new music. It's one of those albums that seems possible to mildly enjoy at most, but to declare this a classic is really silly. I have to agree with Chris Ott on this one; by the time they release their second album (if that in fact happens) I find it hard to believe that anyone is really going to care anymore.
Posted by will | August 26, 2006 1:50 PM
"As the Voice pointed out, go by some Talulah Gosh, Heavenly, Flatmates and Shop Assistants records."
Wow those bands sound absolutely nothing like the Pipettes, other than the female vocals. I'm not taking anything away from those bands as I love Heavenly, Talulah Gosh, and the Shop Assistants, but The Pipettes are an excellent group on their own. It's a nice change of pace to listen to some fun, catchy pop music.
Posted by Anonymous | August 26, 2006 3:34 PM
the pipettes are amazing and can't imagine Amelia Fletcher not liking them.
Posted by Ben | August 26, 2006 4:58 PM
IT'S THIS SIMPLE: close your eyes, listen to the song. It's not a good song. Since it's all I have to judge by, sorry. No go (despite matching dresses or whatever)
Posted by rupert | August 26, 2006 8:03 PM
Who cares if they're good or not. The real question is, do they put out. In all honesty though, screw these flavor of the month no-name lightweight bands.
Posted by pANTHRO | August 27, 2006 9:01 AM
The Dansettes are much better. Soulful singing, tight band, good songs.
Posted by allison | August 27, 2006 5:44 PM
I don't see The Pipettes catching on big, or starting some sort of girl-group revival. I've heard some of their tracks(eg. Pull Shapes) and they definitely hit the spot with regards to some of my indiepop tastes. But they're definitely a niche band that'll probably appeal to 60's afficianados, neo-Mods and the like.
Posted by mike | August 27, 2006 8:28 PM
cant compare to the shangri-la's etc etc...more like the go-go's.. no wait...not as good as that either...
Posted by tom | August 27, 2006 9:24 PM
Pipettes are a musical joke next to the dansettes
www.myspace.com/thedansettes
Posted by Anonymous | August 27, 2006 10:52 PM
Pipettes are a musical joke next to the dansettes
www.myspace.com/thedansettes
Posted by Anonymous | August 27, 2006 10:53 PM
Pipettes are a musical joke next to the dansettes
www.myspace.com/thedansettes
Posted by Anonymous | August 27, 2006 10:54 PM
The Pipettes yet again prove that people love kitschy stuff as long as there's no musical content. If your band is conceptual and kitschy and doing a reinvention of something and you are an interesting sounding band, you're fucked. You alienate the people who like serious music by being kitschy and you alienate the people who like kitsch because the music distracts from it.
Posted by Michael | August 28, 2006 9:58 PM
That warm tingling feeling you feel as you listen to The Pipettes is a British promoter named Monster Bobby urinating on your face. His favorite music (according to his myspace page) includes Christian rap and grindcore. Perhaps you could strike up a conversation with him on one of these topics while he empties his bladder.
Myself, I'm glad that Sleater-Kinney put out 7 albums before they broke up. Something tells me it's going to be a long, cold winter.
Posted by Moiche | August 30, 2006 9:11 PM
I agree with a lot of the comments here, The Pipettes are truly a horrible band. I thought novelty acts were a thing of the past, yet people seem to be eating this crap up with a spoon. 50's doo-wap bands sounded good in the 50's - The Pipettes are simply a repackaged retro act unfit for human consumption. I wanna smack the guy that signed this band.
Posted by a band apart | August 31, 2006 10:20 PM
I agree with a lot of the comments here, The Pipettes are truly a horrible band. I thought novelty acts were a thing of the past, yet people seem to be eating this crap up with a spoon. 50's doo-wap bands sounded good in the 50's - The Pipettes are simply a repackaged retro act unfit for human consumption. I wanna smack the guy that signed this band.
Posted by A Band A Part | August 31, 2006 10:22 PM
Pipettes are a great band.
Posted by Anonymous | February 11, 2007 2:27 PM