Line Out Music & Nightlife

Slog

News & Arts

« The Gutter is the Concert Hall | Second Shins Show Added »

Monday, January 29, 2007

“Blipsters”

posted by on January 29 at 10:40 AM

229493195_a920f9c7ff.jpg
Kyp Malone is sooo blip.

Over the weekend, the New York Times broke the news that some black people make/listen to indie rock music, not just jazz and hip hop or whatever.

But 40 years after black musicians laid down the foundations of rock, then largely left the genre to white artists and fans, some blacks are again looking to reconnect with the rock music scene.

Ah yes, how noble of them to “leave” the genre to the white man. Given the need for categorizing fans based on race, the NYT rushed to deliver some nomenclature for these musically-inclined race traitors, and the word they came up with is…wait for it…Blipster! As in “Black hipster,” get it?

there is even a new word for black fans of indie rock: “blipster,” which was added to UrbanDictionary.com last summer, defined as “a person who is black and also can be stereotyped by appearance, musical taste, and/or social scene as a hipster.”

Finally! Now when I’m at a show instead of having to say “the black guy” I can just say “that blipster”—anything that keeps me from having to know people of color by their actual given names. Thank you, Urban Dictionary, and thank you tireless geniuses of the New York Times.

RSS icon Comments

1

By far the worst article written about music in the NYT! Offensive to say the least. Unreal really. Thought it was a joke at first.

Posted by BR | January 29, 2007 10:54 AM
2

I'll second that. It really was incredible. The premise was this: not all black people are the same. And there are a lot of professors and musicians and black hipsters quoted in the article, which makes it seem like everyone involved thought the reporter's premise made sense, but that's not necessarily true, because when you take a call from a New York Times reporter, well, you know, you're flattered just to be asked to weigh in, it's the New York Times! But Jesus if it didn't read like a train wreck.

Posted by christopher frizzelle | January 29, 2007 11:09 AM
3

I hope next weekend will feature a story on Wiggers. I've been wanting to learn about this new cultural trend!

Posted by Ari Spool | January 29, 2007 11:32 AM
4

I like the term blipster, though, as a tongue-in-cheek description of the hipster/electronic scene. "Yeah man, Tuesdays at Baltic caters to the blipsters." When I saw the title of this post, I was hoping you were cultivating some new neologism.

After reading the post, however, I say ick.

Posted by bailee. | January 29, 2007 11:38 AM
5

I'm confused about this "40 years ago" part. What foundations of white rock'n'roll were black musicians laying down in 1967? The foundations were laid in 1947, not 1967.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2007 12:17 PM
6

the NYT even highlighted Seattle blipster, Douglas Martin.

Posted by josh | January 29, 2007 12:17 PM
7

Nice job shoveling shit from the Gawker stable.

Posted by maurice | January 29, 2007 12:19 PM
8

You just know that white boys will try and copy the whole blipster thing. Actin’ all blipsterish. They will be called whipsters.

Posted by JC | January 29, 2007 12:24 PM
9

Whipsters, that's fantastic!

And also, I first read this on Brooklyn Vegan, but it's hardly Gawker's scoop, it's in the fucking New York Times. Gawker just gets up earlier because of their time zone advantage.

Posted by Eric Grandy | January 29, 2007 12:36 PM
10

No biggy. Just did a double take seeing "NYT 'discovers'..." two times in the same day on the same story. But I cavil! Keep up the good work.

Posted by maurice | January 29, 2007 12:59 PM
11

Ah, I see. I've reworded it for added value. Thanks.

Posted by Eric Grandy | January 29, 2007 1:04 PM
12

It should be noted that Afropunk is a great documentary and discussion on race.

Posted by christopher hong | January 29, 2007 1:40 PM
13

I'm confused about this "40 years ago" part. What foundations of white rock'n'roll were black musicians laying down in 1967? The foundations were laid in 1947, not 1967

Exactly. Right there the writer lose ANY credibility. And as for the premise of the article itself, is it possible for NYT to prove how out of touch and ham-handed it is than this?
Coming up next: the ascent of the Jewish hipster--the Jipster.

Posted by segal | January 29, 2007 2:56 PM
14

I'm down with the Japster, though; that sounds kinda cool. I'm gonna change my myspace name to the Japster.

Posted by Steve | January 29, 2007 3:52 PM
15

Right there the writer lose ANY credibility.
Ack. That should be lost.

Posted by segal | January 29, 2007 3:56 PM
16

Just the worse garbage that I've read recently.

Posted by Deacon Seattle | January 29, 2007 9:20 PM
17

The first hipsters were Jazz muscicians and well, most Jazz musicians were black. This is all bullshit.

Posted by Deacon Seattle | January 29, 2007 9:22 PM
18

The Gnostics were the first hipsters. Maybe.

Posted by segal | January 30, 2007 8:35 AM
19

ijzoqar twsv emvz vjzyxg aomfi gwhtldo lsxupjhy

Posted by qogdbys lpoixmd | February 17, 2007 4:56 AM
20

ijzoqar twsv emvz vjzyxg aomfi gwhtldo lsxupjhy

Posted by qogdbys lpoixmd | February 17, 2007 4:56 AM
21

ijzoqar twsv emvz vjzyxg aomfi gwhtldo lsxupjhy

Posted by qogdbys lpoixmd | February 17, 2007 4:58 AM
22

ijzoqar twsv emvz vjzyxg aomfi gwhtldo lsxupjhy

Posted by qogdbys lpoixmd | February 17, 2007 4:58 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).