Response to Pitchfork – Owl City
The article I’m responding to can be found here.
First and foremost, Pitchfork is a website with success that I cannot and will not degrade; they have earned every bit of their popularity. My reviews may never amount to anything close to what Pitchfork puts out on a daily basis, but the curious difference that let’s me sleep at night, is knowing I will never put out a review like the one in question. It’s almost sickening to see such blatant hate recycled, reused and distributed in a one page review. I still believe anyone who spends time writing articles about ‘bad’ music, as opposed to music they may actually enjoy, is certainly missing out in life (I know AWmusic.ca is guilty of this too). That said, I can full well understand criticism, take it, and learn from it, but the author who wrote the article on Owl City’s Fireflies, is simply a hater at best.
Beyond the two or three lines where the author does tackle some critical issues he has with the song itself, I find myself reading a fan’s guide to Ben Gibbard’s success more than anything else. Mind you, I was a fan of Death Cab and The Postal Service long before I heard of Owl City, and I will continue to be a fan of both. But what the author fails to do in this review is take Ben Gibbard’s crotch out of his oral cavity (as politely as I could state it). The whole Owl City sounds like The Postal Service argument is redundant and certainly about as productive as beating a dead horse. I find it ironic that the author says “But I doubt Ben Gibbard is losing sleep over Owl City’s Adam Young,” so why are you? While I don’t expect a response back, it’d probably be somewhere along the lines of ‘I’m not’ in which case that’s fine. I guess that article you wrote for a major music publication took you all of 10 minutes, right?
My other major gripe, besides the whole avoiding content and writing hate just so you can cash in on that very same artists popularity (get over it, Owl City is popular beyond belief), is the fact that he continues to imply Owl City completely ripped off The Postal Service. What strikes me odd is if Owl City can blatantly copy The Postal Service, and The Postal Service is amazing (which they are), then in theory Owl City’s music, all bias aside, should be at least half way decent. I cannot deny the obvious resemblance between the music, but their similarities are what make me fans of both bands.
Whether Owl City is a one time gimmick remains to be seen, or whether the author in question was on to something (I highly doubt he was). I just find it ridiculous that Pitchfork would publish such a demeaning article, and I’m SURE they didn’t know his chart-topping hit would give them hundreds of thousands of hits (sarcasm). Perhaps my response has more to do with ethics than with music altogether, but I don’t think its right to bash a guy, while looking for hits from his rather large fan base, if that was indeed their intention. I think music culture has gotten too much about being high and mighty, and less about enjoyment and fulfillment, even I find myself sitting here writing a negative response to a negative article.
In the end, Owl City is experiencing success few people will ever imagine, and perhaps writing this was a waste of my own time. Ironic isn’t it?
Check out his Myspace for more on Owl City.
And for my review of his album Ocean Eyes
I’ll have to side with P4K on this one. Song’s all cheese. The Postal Service rip is pretty obvious (Ben Gibbard + helium), but what makes it particularly bad is that they seem to have no idea what made PS charming in the first place. Gibbard can be cloying but this is on an entirely different level.
And yeah, the P4K guy lays it on a bit thick, but he does point to some specific issues he has with the song, especially in the second paragraph. Besides, if we applied the ‘it’s just for hits’ logic, then popular culture would end up immune from criticism because we could just accuse anyone that went after it of being out for traffic.