[Strangelet]

yeah I may later decide that they are pretentious and that I'm pretentious for my enjoying their music, especially finding something religious in their music. But i doubt it.

1. music and religion have *never* existed apart from each other since we were erect and banging on rocks with other rocks because the moon was eclipsing and that kind of felt good as a way to express the awe of it all. I specifically mentioned animism. by that I mean a religion without an anthromorphic deity, but a more gaia principle where nature presumes a kind of consciousness that is not necessarily human, but still self aware. this is the oldest form of relgiious thinking and is something that I personally feel represented in that native, stripped down musical rules and structures combined with the notion of celebration that is in their music. I mean if you don't like the music then you'd want to think that it wouldn't be very religious at all. it would just be bad music.

2. the definition of pretense implies that the artist panders to the audience. I just don't see that with them. They are too difficult and create the responses of hatred by too many people for them to be considered pretentious. I mean its hard to argue this conclusively when pitchforkmedia.com and the hipstsers who treat urban outfitters as the single largest direction of their paycheck all cream their ben sherman pants for the band. ANd I did smell the whiff of pretense from the crowd and its really kind of silly to think I'm some how a stalwart monument of authenticity in a wash of pretense.

At the same time I genuinely like them and its not because I want to be weird or hip. And I do believe that there is a lot of that going on. I just fucking love their bravery (which is the antithesis of pretense) and their ability to challenge not on purpose, but by being who they are and in the midst of the sounds they create, that for me is a religious experience of some quality.