Following Jeff Mangum’s Rialto show in March, Neutral Milk Hotel has announced that they’re bringing the band back together for a reunion tour.
So far, no Tucson dates have been confirmed, though considering how vehement NMH fans are about defending their band’s honor, they may want to consider playing here—if only because there appear to be people champing at the bit to see them in person, regardless of how poorly received Mangum’s show was by Weekly writer Joshua Levine—or how poorly received his review was. A taste of that review [emphasis added]:
The recent announcement of Neutral Milk Hotel’s upcoming fall reunion tour revealed Jeff Mangum to be a crass businessman, expanding his profit margin by selling out his fans. If he were Britney Spears doing a comeback tour, the scenario would be perfectly logical. But Mangum is not a pop singer; he is an artiste whose music changed and shaped many lives under the guise of honesty and integrity. He desecrated his own parables by turning his work into a 45-minute advertisement for his upcoming Neutral Milk Hotel tour. If he needed the money, he could have licensed his songs for Target or Volkswagen commercials. But he didn’t. He disrespectfully pimped out his music to the people to whom it holds untold worth, belittling his audience and reducing them to common johns, impersonally serviced in place of the implicit promise of enlightenment.
That line drew a heated response from a number of people who were all-too-willing to jump down Levine’s (and the Weekly‘s) throat, such as TucsonWeekly.com anonymous commenter george22:
This was the first article I’ve read in the Weekly in quite some time. I’m glad to say I haven’t missed anything. Not only does this article structure its asinine opinion around completely false information, it paints one of the most gifted songwriters of the generation in an absoulutely unnecessarily negative light. God, to let such filth be published in your magazine is inexcusable. I don’t even blame the writer; shame on you Tucson Weekly.
Levine was right. You were wrong. Deal with it, haters.
For more information and updates on Neutral Milk Hotel’s reunion tour, check http://www.groundcontroltouring.com/artists/neutral-milk-hotel
This article appears in May 2-8, 2013.
…beautiful!
Dude, seriously? This article isn’t “news”, if you actually consider this article worthy “content” I simply can’t help you. You think the fact that this small circle of friends has decided to play together again proves/changes anything about Jeffs motive for touring? Correlation =/= causation. I stand by all of my analysis on the other thread. This article is a shameful, cowardly cheap shot that contributes nothing. Frankly, you sound like a petulant child. I KNOW exactly where Jeff’s head is at in all this. It astounds me that any magazine would allow its writers to taunt prospective readers like this. Seriously- I’m utterly flabbergasted.
Jeff, I’m cool with the NMH fans who disagreed with Levine’s review — differing opinions are fine, and I prefer them to everyone patting everyone else on the back.
But when readers like the commenter who couldn’t stand to have his/her perceptions of Mangum challenged, and thus said of our writer “fuck him” (and since had his/her comment deleted), I’m not particularly concerned about their feelings.
Also, considering that the NMH reunion announcement was big enough to merit a fairly visible post on some of the most visible blogs in the country, I’m willing to call this “news with a slightly lengthy aside.”
That’s just, like, your opinion, man.
Good post, David. I agree with you in principle: “fuck the writer” is a bad attitude and never constructive. I don’t mean to condone that, but I try to address hater feelings because I believe in some cased (not all), it’s the kind of thing people revert to when they have intense feelings they want to explain but can’t put into words. So in frustration some just vent in a way that overshadows any possible value in their thoughts, and I try to be sympathetic sometimes when that happens. The tour is HUGE news for sure and I would expect the mag to cover it in a post, all I meant is: can an article be news if it’s 1/3 reporting an announcement, 2/3 personal vendetta? There are about 20 people involved in the comment discussion he references. 20 who have any idea what the hell was discussed. The vast majority of prospective readers have no context whatsoever. So how does this work for a public audience? It doesnt. Personally, it’s galling to see this extremely questionable characterization of the original comments re-published here because I know almost no one will seek out the comments to read and analyze for self. Accountability. The writer can cherry pick details, whatever he wants, knowing his statements are unlikely to be challenged. This new article/announcement becomes the received wisdom from that discussion? No one to challenge that, to speak up and prevent this from being reported/considered journalistic fact? Not on my watch. I just couldnt let this pass because basically, the article he wrote amounts to someone declaring “victory!” at a random moment in a war where all the soldiers were done fighting, then scampering off to.hide as fast as possible before anyone can react in any way, all the way feeling like a winner who got the last laugh. I’m being slightly dramatic here, but you can see what I’m trying to say. And the discussion of Josh’ s original article went cold a long time ago, we said what we said and all moved on. The participants are long over it. Reopening those antagonisms–way too personal to be incorporated in something considered “news,” in my opinion. I’m ecstatic to know they are touring! Best news in a while for me! But whatever this particular article may be about, it isn’t really about the news-its about something else, but I can’t finger what, precisely.
Actually, I should revise these thoughts, I’ve done some re-reading and I don’t have this worked out to my satisfaction yet. My previous post was a bit too critical of this follow up article, I was triggered by seeing Levine’s quote again and putting that on this author, this piece is less explosive than my first impression. My intuition is telling me there is an issue here, but I haven’t successfully identified the root yet. Hmm…
This attempt to prove all the commenters of the original article wrong is even more pathetic than the original review, and that’s saying something. First of all the fact that a reunion announcement has been made doesn’t automatically make Mangum’s motivation for touring before to be an advertisement. Also, at the time of the review this had not been announced, which is why this newest disgrace of an article on the topic appeared over a month after the original. If you were so sure why not jump to Levine’s defense when the comments were being written. This is all a moot point, though, because the original article still stands as a personal vendetta, not a review. That one of the things the commenters latched on to to make their point has panned out doesn’t invalidate the content of their discussion. This is a petty, juvenile announcement, and one I’m surprised representatives of the weekly would be willing to stoop to. After going back and reading the original review, as well as the comments, I actually think the commenter you quote here was right on the money, despite his criticism of the reunion announcement. Shame on you weekly indeed!