Torontoist: People Who Live In Crystal Castles…

tyrannosaurus_rek

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:01:23 -0500

You can't put something online and then say you didn't mean to release/distribute it. That's not how the internet works.

n0wak

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:05:24 -0500

Hear hear. I think most of the "controversy" around this issue is, beyond the actual sampling, a result of Crystal Castle's attitude: they've come across as total douchebags. And while it's nice that they're making good and promoting chiptunes now, it all comes across as after-the-storm damage control. It's disingenuous. If they were upfront about the chiptunes from the start, none of this would have happened. Instead, they credited their magical atari keyboard that came from the sky and came across as smug bastards. Way to image build there!

Dauragon

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:31:15 -0500

Excellent article! What I like about it is that its not entirely negative towards anyone, and it also doesn't take any sides. It just lays everything out. In the end, the person who comes off looking like the biggest asshole is neither Alice or Ethan, its that Apples dude who is doing pretty much all the talking for them and dictating what information gets put out. But yeah my personal opinions aside, this is a great great great great article! Keep up the good work.

kurtrizzo

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:11:50 -0500

Good Job Mathew. What we need is more journalists like you and the Torontoist staff for covering both sides of stories. The attitude their manager is taking is of someone who only search for articles who praise their band. And like David Topping said, CC words are not gospel and it's great to find people who don't take their words for granted. Thanks! This is real journalism.

matty

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:42:03 -0500

I wouldn't do an interview with David Topping either. His articles articles are hyperbolic at best and written in a bloated, confusing and extremely cynical manner. The guy thinks he's doing some sort of great justice by beating up on this band when in reality he's stoking the flames of rumors on the internet in the hopes that he can get a rise out of them. Good job CC, don't talk to this pathetic website as all they'll do is hate.

ked

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:34:43 -0500

So many bands and song names it is hard to keep track. I'm glad they seem to be sorting it out with Lo-Bat. That is the kind of thing they should be talking about in interviews. Admitting a mistake and trying to fix it is so much more likeable than being evasive. But then they probably have little interest in being likeable. Rock bands eh?

David Topping

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:13:38 -0500

I hope this doesn't derail the thread before it even begins, and that any further discussion about the Trevor Brown controversy will continue in the comment thread devoted to it, but I should briefly respond here to Apples's claim that the statement he sent to me was, in my article, "used minimally and selectively," and that the "overall tone" of the article "was biased. It left readers with enough wholes [sic] to pull the issue open even wider than before." I received no such complaint from Apples—private or public (he commented on the article several times after it was published)—until I brought up the latest accusation towards the band he represents. In the interests of disclosing the now-contested material, I've just left a comment on the original article with the full unedited statement that he issued to me concerning Brown. It is absolutely true that I was selective in what portions of that statement (and other e-mails sent back and forth) I chose to publish. I was also selective with what I ran of Brown's comments. The point was to create a synthesis of what was available on both sides, to put the two sides in dialogue, and not to just slap down everything each side said to me. I did not in any way attempt to misrepresent Apples or anything that he said. Both sides got to speak, and speak to each other's points, and I attempted to plug whatever holes I could without giving either side too much of the benefit of the doubt. The whole thing is one big he said/he said that I attempted to map out and make sense of. I had no motive other than to present the truth. All in all, Apples seems more disappointed not because the article I wrote was "biased" (which I disagree with), but because I did not unequivocally take his or his band's side in an issue where there are legitimate reasons to not do so. That's the biggest mistake Pitchfork made in their most recent article: they treated the Crystal Castles' words as gospel when the band, and their manager, keep giving everyone more and more reasons not to.