read an interview w/ stars frontman torquil campbell, quoted as follows:

"God bless Animal Collective, but they really have, in their own strange way, made indie rock a much more conservative place than it should be. If you can create intellectual distance from your work, then critics will feel clever for getting it and give you good marks; if you create music that fucked-up 13-year-old girls might enjoy, then critics will feel like you're trying too hard and not give you good marks. The Pitchfork phenomenon in particular is bizarre because it seems to have altered the fundamental way in which people get into music. I really do think that people should probably lose their virginity before they start writing reviews for Pitchfork."

Questions that follow:
1) Are bands that are wear their heart on their sleeve musically penalized for so doing? Know we touched on this discussion a few years back (sentimentality vs. ironic distance) so wondered if you all felt the same today.
2) Is Animal Collective's music really intellectually distant? I would argue otherwise.
3) Is it likely that most Pitchfork scribes have yet to engage in coitus? If so, should they be barred from publishing until they've done the deed?

Should these questions bore you to tears, here's an article on the future of itunes.