I’ve read this a few places - could you elaborate? My impression was that management wouldn’t let him into their circle (and presumably wouldn’t pay him what he now makes), but I don’t have a sense for what actually happened.
The Ringer
- Thread starter Cellar-Door
- Start date
I'd gather it's a show not really on their radar, and they tend to only talk about what they watch and (generally) what they like. Maybe they watched it and didn't like it. Likely they haven't at all: the vast, vast majority of shows that come out aren't mentioned or noticed. I get thinking that they should mention it solely *because* they worked with those guys, but I don't know that that's a compelling reason.
Also, it'll likely come up at some point.
He went into it in detail on this podcast. It’s been a while since I listened, so maybe I’m remembering it as a bigger deal than it was, but he was pretty upset with what they were offering him and just quit, long before he even had a new gig lined up.
You totally misread and misunderstood what he was saying and criticizing. First off, the "site" he was referring to was The Ringer not SOSH. Secondly he is also referring to the acrimonious split between Shea and the powers that be at the Ringer. Thirdly, where in his comment did the fact that it is a Hispanic show was it mentioned? Maybe you should stop trying to be the hall monitor and administrator and take a step back and relax. You should definitely apologize for your extremely off target take. You have done much better in the past.
I screwed up, no doubt about it. Bad job by me across the board and I am sorry. No excuse, it was a terrible misread.
Rob Harvilla and Fennessey guesting on Bandsplain to talk the Judgment Night soundtrack today.
Real funny rapport on this one, even if I can't stand Yasi Salek at times.
Real funny rapport on this one, even if I can't stand Yasi Salek at times.
Listening to the "Down by the Water" episode of 60 Songs That Explain the '90s.
Good Christ - is Yasi Salek always this unbearable? I've never listened to Bandsplain. I likely never will.
Good Christ - is Yasi Salek always this unbearable? I've never listened to Bandsplain. I likely never will.
Thank you for bringing her up so I didn’t have to do it first. I can’t stand her. I first heard her as a previous guest on Rob’s show, and again more recently on a Bandsplain about the Judgement Night soundtrack. The latter was suggested to be by the Spotify algorithm, likely because Rob was on it.
I think every other sentence out of her mouth is some lame attempt to prove how cool she is.
FWIW, the first half of the PJ Harvey ep is why Harvilla is incredible. I don’t care for PJ Harvey, but Rob’s storytelling is so damn riveting. Such a great listen. Then Salek came on and I turned it off in 5 minutes.
The short answer is yes.
The interviews on 60 Songs are ok but compared to Rob's monologues, I grade them as an F minus in general. They are nothing but filler. But Yasi is especially rough.
The exceptions on the interviews are for people like Courtney Love and Sophie Hawkins. Actual musicians who are interesting and have stories about how the music business actually works.
Was coming to say the same- I usually turn it off after Rob's monologue ends, unless the guest or band is a personal favorite.
Has anyone found a podcast similar to this that is worth listening to? I love the topic and the fact that most run under 60 minutes an episode, if you don't listen to the interviews.
Part of the reason I never bothered to check out Bandsplain was seeing some of the episodes with 3+ hour runtimes.
The only podcast that sort of covers a similar vein that I enjoyed was the Rivals: Music's Greatest Feuds that Steve Hyden and Jordan Runtagh did a few years back.
Would love to hear if anyone has found anything worth exploring.
Not quite the same but Song Exploder delves deep into the composition of songs. They did an 8 episode run on Netflix, too.
I would check out one of the episodes on Netflix and if you like it, check out the Podcast. It's nothing like what Rob does because Rob Harvilla is an angel from heaven. But it's kind of close.
In that Bandsplain episode about Judgement Night, she must’ve mentioned that she’s from Torrance, and thus how cool she was as a teenager, like a dozen times. It was insane.
If there’s a hell it involves listening to her 19 hour podcasts on a loop.
On a more positive note, the recent ep of The Big Picture was Amanda, Sean and Chris doing a Harrison Ford movie Hall of Fame. It was 113 minutes of absolute joy.
They're a fun trio, great episode, although I've got to admit Amanda can grate at times. (If you're going to be captain film snob and crap on genre films then by gosh your favorite film has to be like Les Vacance des Monsieur Hublot and not you've got mail).
I’m with you on Amanda - you summed up beautifully why she can be tough to take at times. There was a run over the past few years when between her and Greenwald I couldn’t tell who was less engaged with the medium they were supposed to be covering.
Greenwald's fundamental issue is that he doesn't like TV--at least not most of it. That's ok in life but in a TV critic.
I think amanda likes movies but she doesn't loooove movies. (Sean, that guy loves movies) . It's kind of a weird trait in a film critic.
Greenwald, definitely. I think the peak of Greenwald was when Chris and Andy did a first half of 2022 TV best shows list and Andy literally hadn't finished watching any of the shows he picked. It was hilarious.
I can listen to Dobbins on The Big Picture because it's a great podcast despite her (especially when Ryan is on) but Dobbins is a tough hang. Switch her with Amelia Wedermeyer (a true talent and actual human being who is smart and genuinely hilarious) and The Big Picture becomes an all time podcast. The Dobbins too cool for school act is pretty weak.
But when you rip Dobbins, people immediately go to, "You're sexist." Which just isn't it. She's bad. So is Greenwald. Liz Kelly, Amelia, and Kate Halliwell, on the other hand, are excellent. And obviously Mallory and Joanna are exceptional. It's not about sex. It's about talent and ability and charisma and engagement with the material. On that last point, Andy and Amanda fail miserably.
I always forget whether it’s Amanda or Mallory that I don’t enjoy on The Rewatchables, so it must be Amanda. She was very good on the Harrison Ford HOF pod though, despite Star Wars and Indiana Jones being a large focus.
The too cool for school act is absurd. Maybe it's supposed to be ironic? I'm not quite sure what is in fact cool but I'm rather confident it's not being in your 30s, talking about how amazing nancy meyers is, and ranking other people's coolness.
I think who is an engaging podcaster is more subjective*, and most of the folks on the ringer podcasts benefit from being kind of like us and kind of liking the same movies we like. Andy and Amanda (and Sean) all have potentially offputting traits (i.e. they're an arrogant intellectual, a self centered nerd turned mean girl, and a totally pretentious film dork), Andy and Sean like Alain Deloin and Michael Mann films and Amanda likes late Nora Ephron films so a guy like me (i.e. most of SoSH) is going to be a lot more inclined to like Andy and Sean than they are to like Amanda.
* The exception is Chris who is the best and I will not accept argument to the contrary.
I mean, it sort of is, a lot of listeners will just reject Amanda's taste in movies because it skews towards things women might like. People will often rag on Amanda liking Nancy Myers (see above) and complain about her 'I'm happy that you have superhero movies' vibe, but give Sean a pass on the reverse (which was what he did during the 2001 Movie Draft). They're the same thing! That a whole set of Joker and Marvel loving reply guys think a movie podcast is 'for them' but then roll their eyes at Myers, or English Patient or whatever Amanda likes and then go onto Reddit or Twitter or forums and bemoan the fact that she doesn't like your thing is just something else. I know this is the Ringer thread, but still, we don't need to play to stereotypes so hard.
Nowhere was this more apparent to me than when during a podcast (I think it was the Sky Trash one) just Sean and Chris they were both like 'you know what, the DCEU, not really doing it for me. I don't really get it because I didn't grow up with it'' and it was crickets in the comment sections. I guess it's only okay for certain people to not like things.
The assertion that Amanda is a tough hang speaks more to the listener than anything else, IMO. Sean, Chris and Zach Baron (her husband, but as far as I can tell, their friend first), long time friends, seem to all share the same type of humor, all seem to be great hangs, and all like to hang out with Amanda. The 'Cool Man Committee' is actually hilarious and if you don't understand it then I think the humor might suffer from being generational or something.
I am a huge fan of Nancy Meyers movies and Nora Ephron movies. I watch You've Got Mail annually. I listen to the Tea Time podcast literally every week and the House of R podcast every week, too.
Disliking Amada says things about Amanda. I don't like Andy or Stephen Ruiz either. And I love Nora Princiotti and it would be awesome if she could get hooked up with someone better than Ruiz. I shouldn't have to give my resume but you were a little quick to sit on the throne of judgement, so there you have it.
It's my fault for quoting you directly as a jumping off point - but my criticism isn't aimed at you specifically, necessarily, but at the complainants as a whole. Simply put, a large amount of criticism aimed towards Amanda is 'how can she hate (my) genre?, but those same people aren't self-aware enough to look at their own attitudes towards other (more women-oriented) genres. I don't really see what else these 'too cool for school' complaints refer to.
I don't want to go down the path of 'Let's stack rank The Ringer's female podcasters'. You can be of the opinion that these podcasts are 'despite Amanda', but for my money the Sean/Chris/Amanda trio have put out the best podcasts of any duo or trio on the entire network, so it's certainly 'because' and not 'despite' for me.
I'd say my criticism of Amanda's genre hate is kind of what I tried to say above--she is dismissive of certain genres because they are childish, but lacks the self awareness to realize that she (or perhaps more accurately her Ringer podcast persona) is a fan of similarly banal genre movies. (Also rip on superhero movies all you want, but it's frankly embarrassing for a film critic of any kind to take the position that they don't like animated films because they're for kids
I didn't say too cool for school and aren't sure what they refer to but one possibility is that it refers to her "cool man committee." Which i definitely don't get--what do you find hysterical about it?
Anyhow, regardless of whether she is a good hang or not in real life in a two person pod I find her to be pretty dull-but in a three person pod with chris and sean she's incredibly and is a terrific foil providing huge amounts of comic fodder for the other two hosts.
2 things - first off, she isn't a film critic. Even Sean makes that distinction explicitly sometimes. Now whether being a film critic is any different than being a film enthusiast hosting a film podcast is a distinction without meaning, maybe we can quibble with that. But I would posit that there is a difference in that you don't need to be a scholar of movies (surely a prerequisite to being a film critic) to love movies, and in fact some of the scholarly movie stuff that Sean engages in can be boring or simply not that interesting to the layperson. It's okay to have a co-host that's not into that stuff, I don't find a problem with it at all.
Secondly, I don't find her criticism of animation unreasonable. I am someone that does like animation a lot, but I also don't deny that most animation is made in a way to specifically appeal to kids. Someone being uncharitable might say that it's being simplified or it's being dumbed down. A lot of animated movies are said to be for kids and adults, but there are specifically portions of the movies that are for kids only, and so, again being uncharitable, they have to sit through some kid-oriented bells and whistles to get to the adult stuff. Why do that instead of just watching a movie made for adults? She can like animation when she's sure it's not being made in a way to pander to kids (see her love for Wes Anderson).
Of course, there's a double standard here as well - Chris also doesn't watch animated movies and he gets a pass. The pass in this case is 'well, he's not the co-host of a movie podcast' but we're getting circular here. You really don't need to like all types of movies, even if you have a movie podcast.
It's funny in the same way that guys will argue about all sorts of far-fetched, outlandish things. It goes without saying in these conversations (would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses, could you beat a kangaroo in a fight), but I'm going to say it anyways, is that it's not that serious. Amanda and Juliet are not the final word on what makes a cool man, and it's funny just to hear the arbitrary justifications for nominating someone like Obama or Springsteen or Soderbergh.
I don’t think anyone is convincing me that Amanda is a podcaster I should enjoy, I’m not trying to convince anyone that they shouldn’t like her work, and it looks like I’m not convincing anyone that the dislike of her podcasting isn’t gendered but anyhow here it goes.
I have heard they “they’re not actual film critics” argument but when you write professionally about films fairly often and host a film podcast I think the term film critic is fair. Ymmv. It’s certainly not a reason thst we should like her work. Now thr big picture doesn’t need to be pure higher end film criticism-the episodes when they bring Adam Nayman on are the death of fun. But the fact thst Amanda doesn’t have a classic film critics’ depth of knowledge is one less reason to like her podcasting.
On animation-CRs stated reasons for disliking animation are also stupid. I have a pretty negative view of any shtick anyone uses to reject an entire genre, whether it’s chick flicks are dumb or black and white films are boring or animation is for kids. Of course you can like what you like, not liking Disney and Pixar is totally understandable but the kind of blanket dismissal of a style as kids stuff has a kind of Archie bunker closed mindedness to me. Studio ghibli or Persepolis or waking life are examples of animated films that are pretty good.something is different (and a lot of the Pixar films are pretty damn good). But CR is (to me) exceptionally funny and I think he does have a lot of interesting things to say about the movies I enjoy so I can overlook his views on animated films. I’d overlook it for Amanda as well if I found her funny or informative.
I think there is a reasonable discussion about gender and the ringer. The ringer is definitely a dude centric universe and the movies they talk about are very classically male boys and their toys movies. Mann Tarantino Fincher Scorcese both Scotts-it’s a cult of macho movies over there with gun play and gritty music and no chance of passing the Bechdel test. I also think Amanda is kind of trying to
point that out at times, just don’t think she’s very effective at it-it’s not a show that works for that kind of discussion, she’s not all that knowledgeable about film, and her attempts at comedy kind of fall flat and, for me, undermine whatever feminist perspective she might be trying to bring.
And I don’t take Amanda’s cool list seriously, I just don’t get the joke-maybe it’s age and gender but it’s not clear to me what the perspective is. (Are the arguments meant to be seems as absurd like a hot dog is a sandwich argument? Is it making fun of the list maker? Is it supposed to be subversive because they’re saying cool is all about not being a “try hard” but they are only listing people who are unbelievably image conscious ?) It seems not funny to me because it just sounds like a fairly boring person making a conventional list with predictable explanations but I’m not the target demo and I’m obviously not getting it. Maybe it’s better explained on tea time
edit: listened to the lit man dobbins cool committee discussion and unlike the summary in big picture in full form I get where the joke is now, it’s just not for me.
I have heard they “they’re not actual film critics” argument but when you write professionally about films fairly often and host a film podcast I think the term film critic is fair. Ymmv. It’s certainly not a reason thst we should like her work. Now thr big picture doesn’t need to be pure higher end film criticism-the episodes when they bring Adam Nayman on are the death of fun. But the fact thst Amanda doesn’t have a classic film critics’ depth of knowledge is one less reason to like her podcasting.
On animation-CRs stated reasons for disliking animation are also stupid. I have a pretty negative view of any shtick anyone uses to reject an entire genre, whether it’s chick flicks are dumb or black and white films are boring or animation is for kids. Of course you can like what you like, not liking Disney and Pixar is totally understandable but the kind of blanket dismissal of a style as kids stuff has a kind of Archie bunker closed mindedness to me. Studio ghibli or Persepolis or waking life are examples of animated films that are pretty good.something is different (and a lot of the Pixar films are pretty damn good). But CR is (to me) exceptionally funny and I think he does have a lot of interesting things to say about the movies I enjoy so I can overlook his views on animated films. I’d overlook it for Amanda as well if I found her funny or informative.
I think there is a reasonable discussion about gender and the ringer. The ringer is definitely a dude centric universe and the movies they talk about are very classically male boys and their toys movies. Mann Tarantino Fincher Scorcese both Scotts-it’s a cult of macho movies over there with gun play and gritty music and no chance of passing the Bechdel test. I also think Amanda is kind of trying to
point that out at times, just don’t think she’s very effective at it-it’s not a show that works for that kind of discussion, she’s not all that knowledgeable about film, and her attempts at comedy kind of fall flat and, for me, undermine whatever feminist perspective she might be trying to bring.
And I don’t take Amanda’s cool list seriously, I just don’t get the joke-maybe it’s age and gender but it’s not clear to me what the perspective is. (Are the arguments meant to be seems as absurd like a hot dog is a sandwich argument? Is it making fun of the list maker? Is it supposed to be subversive because they’re saying cool is all about not being a “try hard” but they are only listing people who are unbelievably image conscious ?) It seems not funny to me because it just sounds like a fairly boring person making a conventional list with predictable explanations but I’m not the target demo and I’m obviously not getting it. Maybe it’s better explained on tea time
edit: listened to the lit man dobbins cool committee discussion and unlike the summary in big picture in full form I get where the joke is now, it’s just not for me.
Last edited:
The concept of a ‘woman-oriented’ genre seems to be doing a lot of work in informing your perspective here that there is a sexist bent to the criticism of Amanda. And what does it matter to the discussion in this thread - among those of us participating - that there may be virulent sexists on Twitter or wherever else taking bad faith shots at her?
I think we’d all agree that there are virulent sexists out there and that there are a lot of garbage people who make garbage comments at Amanda-or pretty much any woman commenting on culture on the internet.
Yeah, I have only heard a few episodes of it, but it seems like it’s more about the guest than her, also they play more than just the one song, so it depends on your feelings on the band in question, too. I also thought she was funny on the PJ Harvey episode with Harvilla, though, so whatevs.
Just a special “god he sucks” for Adam Nayman who took some time in his appearance in big picture’s movies of the year podcast to explain that Fast X is really stupid. Wow what a great iconoclastic point, such trenchant and surprising analysis from a self proclaimed intellectual. Haven’t seen fast ten myself and I’m sure it is pretty dumb if it follows I’m the footsteps of the first nine, but I just have so little patience for blanket rejections of genres/franchises/films as being stupid/childish-not because the thing being discussed is so great but just that there's so little useful information being based on by the critic when they say, heh guess what the DCEU sux.
Ironically, Nayman started out on this pod by saying, "People see my name and they just skip." Which is exactly what I do if he's on the podcast. He is BRUUUUTAL.
Yeah perhaps he should take the fact that people skip his podcast as a reason for some introspection and maybe use it to spur change? He was similarly awful on the wes anderson podcast where his primary goal seemed to be dunking on people who make videos on social media imitating the symmetry and bright colors of a wes anderson film, sarcastically saying their criticism is so smart. Ok buddy, being a fan of Wes Anderson the Coen Brother and PT Anderson doesn't make you highly intelligent or particularly unique, and I'm more than a little skeptical of the intelligence of people who spend a lot of time telling me how smart they are.
Rob tackles "Birdhouse in Your Soul" on the newest episode of 60 Songs That Explain the '90s. Run, don't walk.
Thanks for posting this. I don't listen to this podcast but was a huge TMBG fan back in the day and saw them perform at Harvard and also at Avalon twice. "Blue canary in the outlet by the light switch".
This may prompt me to start a TMBG thread! Anyone remember ... Dial a Song?
Goddamn. The "Fade into You" episode not only covers Alan Sparhawk and Mimi Parker, but "Maggot Brain," too?!
Rob understands music.
Rob understands music.
Birdhouse in Your Soul goes on the short list of the very best episodes of the series. They've generally all been very good, at least since the monologues got upped to 40+ minutes, but some of them you can tell he's in his element and this was probably the best example of that in this last batch so far.
https://www.theringer.com/pop-culture/2023/8/11/23828223/best-pop-culture-jerks-bracket-final-cartman-vs-shooter-mcgavin
The biggest pop culture jerk bracket is down to the final matchup. I don't know why Cartman was a 5 seed, he is truly the biggest jerk out of the media I've consumed. And Shooter beat Biff Tannen in the semifinal matchup. I know Shooter was a dick to Happy and others in his orbit, but geez Biff forced himself onto Marty's mom. At least Shooter only got it on with Happy's willing grandma in his nightmares.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvAjYgxfkuw
The biggest pop culture jerk bracket is down to the final matchup. I don't know why Cartman was a 5 seed, he is truly the biggest jerk out of the media I've consumed. And Shooter beat Biff Tannen in the semifinal matchup. I know Shooter was a dick to Happy and others in his orbit, but geez Biff forced himself onto Marty's mom. At least Shooter only got it on with Happy's willing grandma in his nightmares.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvAjYgxfkuw
Yeah Scott Ternorman ate his parents because of Cartman. That's been in my head whenever I've voted.
The Ringer likes to underrate Cartman. I remember in the Greatest TV Characters bracket they had years ago like had Cartman as like, a 13 seed and PWB's character from Fleabag as a 4 seed, and when Cartman smoked Fleabag in the poll the person who writes the recaps was like "How could Cartman have beaten Fleabag?"