THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Jackie Blue on 26 Mar 2008, 11:56
-
Tom Ewing now writes for Pitchfork. That is a good thing; his reviews are clever, well-written and insightful. But that's not the point.
The point is that, after the bizarre thrashing they gave Maserati's excellent Inventions For the New Season last year (4.4? Really?) today they solidify their backlash-loving pop-and-rap cockgobbling nature with a dismal 5.2 for Silver Mt. Zion's 13 Blues For Thirteen Moons, which is still my favourite album of the year and easily my favourite from said band - while at the same time, giving a mysterious pity 7.5 to the absolutely dire new Bauhaus album.
I didn't click on the Gnarls Barkley review but I'm sure they gave it a 9.1 or some shit.
-
The joke is that the poster does not agree with a music reviews website.
-
Sounds like someone needs to bookmark:
http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/ (http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/)
Were any of the pitchfork reviewers even alive when the good Bauhaus Lp's were released?
-
It's not that I don't agree with them - I read reviews all the time that I don't agree with yet can still concede they make valid points. It's that, as bad as we all thought PFork was a few years ago, it just keeps getting worse. I am honestly amazed at how bad and how extensive this trend has become. By now they are such a large and well-known site they could at least hire writers who don't like an album but also don't devolve into parody in the review (and also don't get their facts wrong: the Silver Mt. Zion review claimed that vocals were "prominently" featured on their first two albums, when in fact, the first album had one song with vocals and the second had two - three if you count a short spoken-word piece).
I mean how many reviews start out with "I remember the first time I saw this band..." and include, at some point, "Of course, the apex of their career were those albums they churned out inbetween gigs sleeping on the floor of anyone who would let them pass out there after the show..."
Answer: A whole fucking lot.
-
Man fuck music reviews in general, they are a dumb idea.
-
Thing is, Pitchfork isn't really a music review website anymore. It's an online fashion magazine, and Silver Mt. Zion and Maserati just aren't in this season.
They still have pretty cool interviews and columns, and once in a while a fashionable band just happens to be really fucking good, but the score has nothing to do with the music.
-
Man fuck music reviews in general, they are a dumb idea.
Tell that to any struggling band in the back of a van who wont make any money on tour unless someone spends dough on merch....In a cerebral way I agree that reviews are a fucking dumb idea but we live in a technological driven society which affords us multiple avenues in which to discover new music-but as someone who has starved for the sake of art a decent review or gossip blip can be the difference between the salsa packet for dinner or a burrito with salsa...just my 2 cents
-
i like tinymixtapes.com
they seem quite reasonable and fun, as in, they don't have giant turds up their asses half the time.
-
Here's the four reasons I quit Pitchfork:
Actually two of them have been taken down, one of which was the Wilco review where the writer said 'this isn't usually my kind of thing,' and another of which was the review of Flaming Lips' Zaireeka where they gave it to someone with only one CD player, and he promptly gave it a bad review because he couldn't listen to it properly. Prick.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/17454-the-eminem-show
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19343-imagine-digitally-remastered-and-remixed
-
Thing is, Pitchfork isn't really a music review website anymore. It's an online fashion magazine, and Silver Mt. Zion and Maserati just aren't in this season.
Exactly my point, but the distressing thing is that their core younger fanbase actually pays attention to the reviews as though they are reasonably objective (like they admittedly used to be).
They used to at least let people familiar with genres/bands review albums that fit those styles (and still do, in the case of Tom Ewing, whose review of the new Britney Spears album was incredibly well-done).
Now it seems like they just randomly throw albums at people who have never really listened to, or wanted to listen to, the genre or band in question. That they get away with it is poor journalism at best.
(DynamiteKid - Yeah, they gave Zaireeka a 0.0)
-
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/17454-the-eminem-show
I usually really enjoy reading pitchfork but what the fuck is this shit.
Someone post the Kid A and Jet reviews, they have to be in every Pitchfork thread.
I'd give Zaireeka a 0.0 without having heard a single note, mind. That's just retarded.
I liked the one for the new Radiohead album where you could put in your own rating and then it was like "haha no seriously, it's 9.2" or something.
-
Rating "Do You Like Rock Music?" with an U.2 is just dumb. Fuckers.
i like tinymixtapes.com
they seem quite reasonable and fun, as in, they don't have giant turds up their asses half the time.
Tiny Mix Tapes = awesome.
-
I thought the Jet review was excellent.
( http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-shine-on (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-shine-on) )
Other than that, Pitchfork is shit.
-
i like tinymixtapes.com
they seem quite reasonable and fun, as in, they don't have giant turds up their asses half the time.
tinymixtapes is great but part of the greatness comes from the fact that they seem to be fans of most of the music they cover-which it has been pointed out-that pitchfork used to be. I think pitchfork suffers from anything that gets to be the pinnacle of hipster, usually a corporate entity swoops in and presses different- limitations on what will be covered. I am not sure of the median age of this board but I am sure plenty of you witnessed this with your local radio growing up--you can be in any major city in America and hear the selected and approved version of what Clear Channel wants the kids to buy--all the more reason for kids to start listening to people like Lessig and his ideals of free culture so that we can all stop having to endure the bland homogenization of surface culture and continue to push boundaries for the cream of art to raise to the top
-
Man fuck music reviews in general, they are a dumb idea.
Tell that to any struggling band in the back of a van who wont make any money on tour unless someone spends dough on merch....In a cerebral way I agree that reviews are a fucking dumb idea but we live in a technological driven society which affords us multiple avenues in which to discover new music-but as someone who has starved for the sake of art a decent review or gossip blip can be the difference between the salsa packet for dinner or a burrito with salsa...just my 2 cents
I'm not saying they aren't necessary right now, but I pay no attention to reviews, I learn about music solely from people I know saying "Hey, I just listened to this, it was pretty good."
-
I'd like to start the following petition: every time someone writes "Pitchfork" on this forum, the word is replaced with "coprophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia)." We can do this, people.
-
I actually got a good laugh out of that Eminem review, especially the jabs at Scheiber.
Plus, I think that album does deserve a 9 or so. Solid.
-
I don't think Pitchfork's reviewers are terribly bad, it's just that they manage to talk about everything but the record in question. I don't want to read pseudo-non-fictioustousshitbagfuck from some obnoxious retard who's having a bad day.
Btw. giving Zaireeka a 0.0 was a baaaaaad idea. Zaireeka is the fucking bomb.
-
I'd like to start the following petition: every time someone writes "Pitchfork" on this forum, the word is replaced with "coprophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia)." We can do this, people.
You. I like you. Let's hang out.
-
This is why Pitchfork annoys me. (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15122-untilted)
-
what the fuck was that? i was waiting for a review but it wouldn't come so i scrolled ahead and found none.
so i promptly stopped reading and vowed to never go to that website again or even so much as mention it aloud for any reason.
-
Another gem of a "review" that tells you almost nothing:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15304-ion-the-ellipsei
And that's from '03, so there is really no excuse.
-
GODDAMN IT YOU TRICKED ME
here i was, thinking "i'll never go to that website again" and then before i realized what was happening i was reading a big pile of bullshit.
fuck.
-
This is why Pitchfork annoys me. (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15122-untilted)
Is it just supposed to make it appear like your browser is loading the page for ever and ever?
-
Another gem of a "review" that tells you almost nothing:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15304-ion-the-ellipsei
And that's from '03, so there is really no excuse.
Wait so you start the 3465457th thread on this same fucking topic, regarding how much Pitchfork sucks, giving one new reason as to why they suck, and saying how it's different from their normal amount of suck, and then you post a 5-year-old review that is pretty much the exact same thing, but older?
Dude just go outside.
-
This is why Pitchfork annoys me. (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15122-untilted)
Is it just supposed to make it appear like your browser is loading the page for ever and ever?
Works for me :\
-
Wait so you start the 3465457th thread on this same fucking topic, regarding how much Pitchfork sucks, giving one new reason as to why they suck, and saying how it's different from their normal amount of suck, and then you post a 5-year-old review that is pretty much the exact same thing, but older?
Dude just go outside.
So you make the 7497937th post about how "zerodrone is stupid" even though ten other people did the same thing I did (post examples of old reviews that soured them on the site)?
I think you need to go outside too. Dude.
-
I never said you were stupid, I just said I'm sick and tired of seeing a billion threads about Pitchfork that never say anything new. Shit, there have been a billion PARODY threads about how "Pitchfork sucks" threads are fucking retarded. There have been parody threads of the parody threads, I have seen it done.
Seriously guys bitching about Pitchfork isn't cool anymore and hasn't been for years.
-
OK, you didn't say I was "stupid", but you singled me out. Most people in the thread seem to be getting a kick out of bitching about Pitchfork and sharing their examples. If you don't like it, that's cool. If I posted in every thread on here that I thought was stupid I'd have... well, about as many posts as you, by now.
-
It's a list thread. List threads are stupid.
-
It's a list thread. List threads are stupid.
So stop posting in it.
tommy, you can jolly well toss off, too.
Christ, the old boys club on this board makes the RNC look like a drum circle.
-
They still have pretty cool interviews and columns, and once in a while a fashionable band just happens to be really fucking good, but the score has nothing to do with the music.
That is the only reason I still go there.
Yeah, Pitchfork likes to follow trends and shit but something interesting is bound to always pop up. The reviews are almost like a separate entity to the news and columns. It's a rare album that unifies critics because everyone is subjective or prejudiced to some degree, it's entirely unavoidable. Such an attitude effects every piece of writing and just as news journalists can be racists, music reporters can be genre-ists.
-
On topic - I don't particularly like Pitchfork and I've done an equal amount of moaning about it in the past. Over the last year or so, I just deleted the bookmark and stopped going. Since then, I've been completely apathetic to this site among others. Some other people I know just read the headlines and skip the reviews. Why not try something like that?
I feel that it is important to occasionally point out the glaring flaws in Pitchfork because, believe it or not, a lot of people don't see them right away and actually pay attention to what their reviews say and which albums they say you should or shouldn't buy.
In that way, it is necessary to point out their stupidity - and keep up with it - in the same way it is necessary to point out, and keep up with, the stupidity of major record labels or especially repulsive politicians. "Just ignore it" is not a philosophy I think applies to everything I don't like.
-
Anecdotal evidence, tommy. 100% anecdotal. I'm betting you don't even know a single "average Pitchfork reader".
I'm just hedging my bets.
To continue the political example: Most freedom-lovin' liberal-Democrats in this country are already going to vote Democrat in the next election. Does that mean that the bad things said or done by George Bush or right-wing pundits should just be "ignored"? I don't think so.
After all, this is just a forum. If even one person gets from this thread that Pitchfork are a bunch of taste-making douchelords, it's a good thing. If nobody gets anything at all from this thread, well, you can say that about 90% of the threads on the board, so why meta-argue against the existance of it when it is at least A) On topic and B) not spam? It's not like that atrocious-turned-hilarious "Musicals suck!" thread.
-
"Just ignore it" is not a philosophy I think applies to everything I don't like.
i think ignoring it is valid advice. that's what i do and i'm the happiest person i know.
the only reason i've ever heard the word "pitchfork" used outside of farming is because of you guys.
why get so worked up about something that doesn't directly affect you and is only a part of your life because you allow it to be?
-
My life is the music scene. Pitchfork is a part of the music scene. Therefore Pitchfork is, like it or not, a part of my life in at least a tangential sense.
Also, you're making the extremely common mistake in assuming that every time someone posts on the Internet they are "worked up".
-
"Just ignore it" is not a philosophy I think applies to everything I don't like.
Funny, weren't you just telling me 30 minutes ago that I didn't have to post in this thread if I didn't like it? Isn't that a way of saying "Just ignore it"?
-
Funny, weren't you just telling me 30 minutes ago that I didn't have to post in this thread if I didn't like it? Isn't that a way of saying "Just ignore it"?
Yes, it is. Which is why I said, at the same time, that I don't post in every thread I don't like. Take some reading comprehension lessons or something and notice that I said "Just ignore it" is not something that applies to everything I don't like.
I don't think you pissing in my Cheerios has even a slim possibility of doing any good in your life or mine, which is why I think you should just let it go and post about something else.
-
Also, you're making the extremely common mistake in assuming that every time someone posts on the Internet they are "worked up".
sorry, i don't really know what being 'worked up' is like so i always assume people are pissed if they are speaking negatively about something, when they are really just a little annoyed.
i only have two moods: "apathetic" and "stoked" so anything that falls into the negative category is fairly alien to me.
-
(http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3196/fightlf5.jpg)
-
Take some reading comprehension lessons
(http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2175/rushheavyrt5.png)
-
Jesus tits, is it this time of month again?
Can we have an announcement on top that says "WE KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE PITCHFORK, SHUT THE BALLS UP ABOUT IT?"
-
Pitchfork is about as useless to the music scene as this argument is to the music forum.
-
I understand that the previous poster might have said something arguement worthy, but really guys. I think Karl's post says what we need to do here the best.
-
Jesus tits, is it this time of month again?
Can we have an announcement on top that says "WE KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE PITCHFORK, SHUT THE BALLS UP ABOUT IT?"
I propose that we make that the subtitle for "Music Talk" on the main forum page instead of "HAEV U HERD OF TIHS BAND CALD SLINT???"
-
And obviously bitching about bitching about Pitchfork is so much more worthwhile.
It's OK, I know it makes you feel like you have big dicks to pile on me for starting a Pitchfork thread. I realise it gives you a sense of righteousness to have everyone on the board agree with you that I'm a fucktard for writing about the P4. Mob mentality feels good. I understand, I really do. I'm not here to win popularity contests by posting image macros showcasing how clever I am or ganging up on someone so I can feel as though my message board pedigree is in the top of my class.
-
Oh noes, people agree on something, this means they're not only an unoriginal hivemind of "me too"ism, they're also big fat ugly bullies!
Chill out and stop your A BLOO BLOO BLOO bullshit, you're just hurting your position by making lame attacks on our credibility.
-
I'm not attacking your "credibility", I'm just saying that I genuinely understand why people feel good about ganging up in a massive bitchfest because they think a thread is unneccessary. I also think you're being a dick and getting away with it because you've been here a long time.
Apparently I have not been here long enough to be a dick and get away with it.
-
I didn't actually comment on whether or not this was a bad thread, I just said that I decided to ignore Pitchfork for similar reasons and it works.
I realised that a while ago and thus have not been referring to you. Apologies if you thought I was.
-
I have no problem with your thread zerodrone. I just saw arguing, and it made me sad, because it is very angry arguing. Karl's macro is less a criticism of you and your thread and more a blow to the conduct of everyone posting hate mail here. I agree with you that this is a topic worth discussing and that people shouldn't come in here just to tell you that you're being whiny (I do not mean to misquote anyone. For lack of a better spur-of-the-moment word, whiny is now part of the sentence.).
-
That has been my plan since the beginning, but I feel this entire post was so funny that it had to be posted twice.
I'm not attacking your "credibility", I'm just saying that I genuinely understand why people feel good about ganging up in a massive bitchfest because they think a thread is unneccessary. I also think you're being a dick and getting away with it because you've been here a long time.
Apparently I have not been here long enough to be a dick and get away with it.
I too, have LOL'd.
-
So wait, if one person doesn't like a thread, he's attacking you personally, if multiple people don't like it, it's a mob mentality.
Right.
The thing is, Zerodrone:
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,14439.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,14439.0.html)
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,3638.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,3638.0.html)
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,12622.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,12622.0.html)
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,16108.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,16108.0.html)
http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,18169.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,18169.0.html)
...and so on. And those are only the threads entirely devoted to bashing pitchfork.
I mean fucking hell man you started one of them yourself.
-
I'm not attacking your "credibility"
(one sentence later...)
I also think you're being a dick and getting away with it because you've been here a long time.
Did you start the post at 11:55pm, and then 5 minutes later it became Opposite Day or something? Because that's the only way that post works.
And don't think for a second that I haven't been yelled at for being a dick before. If you have followed I Like HURRRRRRR at all for the last 3 days you may see a thread about AIDS where I have edited two of my posts. That's because I said something that was uncalled for and unfunny and really dickish, I got yelled at, realized my mistake, and edited it and then I shut the hell up and the discussion is back on topic and I've actually made half-decent contributions to it and it survives and goes on civilly to this day. Am I proud of the fact that I was an asshole? No. Am I ashamed of it? No, why be ashamed of something you learned from?
Take that example and compare it to what you've done here. You've started a thread about a subject for which there is a recorded history (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,16108.0.html) (thank you Khar) of people not wanting to talk about it because it has failed repeatedly in the past. That wasn't the big mistake, though. The big mistake was that instead of realizing that you have annoyed people, you just went on and dug yourself an exponentially deeper hole by just straight up saying "Just ignore it and stop being idiots" at people. That's rude, that has not worked for ME in the past, so why the fuck should it work for you?
It has nothing to do with a forum club of OMG ELITE MEMBARZ. Because there isn't one, and Tommy has demonstrated that. I respect the guy, but I'm not going to back him up if he does something I don't agree with. Believe me, if it were him instead of you, there would still be a discussion over it. The difference? Tommy has never once seriously treated me disrespectfully on the forums, even if I didn't realize it at the time (he doesn't sugarcoat anything for anybody). Right now, the tl;dr of what you're just saying is "Fuck you all, you're idiots," and you're disregarding everything anybody who disagrees with you has to say. That doesn't go over well anywhere, be it the floor of the U.S. Senate or the British House of Commons, a Mafia "discussion" room, or a forum on the internet.
-
I mean fucking hell man you started one of them yourself.
Yes, and I think that one was actually one where I was trying to talk about the site in terms other than simply "They suck." I was trying to have an actual dialogue about their tactics.
On any music forum, some things are going to come up over and over. I seriously don't see the problem. There are a lot stupider threads on the frontpage right now.
@ Patrick: You can be a dick and still be credible. Just look at Steve Albini.
I just sincerely see no point in dumping all over a thread. Tommy, MusicScribbles, Scandanavian, Kid van Pervert, several people have either expressed disinterest in the thread in a respectful way or added to it; you, and several others, have just been parroting the old BLUH BLUH WE DON'T NEED THIS THREAD garbage.
Tell a moderator to delete it, I won't mind. I just think that whether you like this thread or not, it IS on topic for the forum and derailing it into an INTERNET FITE is unneccessary. And I believe it was not me that started moving it in that direction, I believe it was a completely civil thread until you were a dick by posting:
Wait so you start the 3465457th thread on this same fucking topic, regarding how much Pitchfork sucks, giving one new reason as to why they suck, and saying how it's different from their normal amount of suck, and then you post a 5-year-old review that is pretty much the exact same thing, but older?
Dude just go outside.
If you can't see you were being a dick there, I don't know what to tell you. The classic internet-argument trope "Just go outside" is always a dick move, and the tone of the first paragraph was confrontational and angry. Again, dickish.
If I overreacted to the ensuing dickishness, that does not excuse the initial dickishness.
-
Hey at least I made the thread interesting.
And if you can't tell that's a joke, I don't know what to tell you, because if you can't, I bet you can't tell your own ass from a dollar and a half.
Also a joke, in case you were wondering/too busy being butthurt
-
Internet argument trope #23682437623: When someone responds to you in a considered and reasonable manner, dismiss all their points by making jokes and saying "Don't be all butthurt, dude."
Now just post the "Pretension" or "Arguing On the Internet" image macros and you will have officially nailed all the clichés you need for the Hat Trick.
:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
-
Dude, don't get butthurt.
-
I love this thread.
So much.
-
:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
I swear when I looked at all those at once it looked like some of them weren't winking, but then they were when I did a double take.
Heavy shit maaaan.
-
my haaands
theyre huuuuuge
-
To contribute positively to this thread. I actually like Pitchfork! I don't so much appreciate their reviews, but I like that there's something out there that tells me what came out recently and gives some silly news and interviews about the music artists that I am often okay with! I think it's silly to go on there and say "Hey, pitchfork gave it a bad review, so I shouldn't give it a listen," it's more like. "hey pitchfork reviewed this so odds are it has been released!"
I'd like to think that my comment was related more to the fact that this thread comes about too often for such a mundane topic. Would people want to read a thread in which I said "I'm not too big on pre-Soft Bulletin Flaming Lips" or "I like Aeroplane more than On Avery Island". How about a "Hey The Beatles are pretty cool" thread? I personally wouldn't because the ground has been trodden upon to the point in which it had become packed down with the bootmarks of the many who came before me. Restating a moderately popular opinion without much new insight seems silly to me.
I don't mean to be a douchebag here. I'm trying to illustrate why I find every action you will ever take useless and silly.
That was a joke.
-
duuuuuude. what if we all saw different colors, but like; we would never, know, ya see man? like, what I call orange you could see as blue but call orange. duuuuuuuuude.
(http://g.photos.cx/whoooooa-32.gif)
-
Tom Ewing now writes for Pitchfork. That is a good thing; his reviews are clever, well-written and insightful. But that's not the point.
The point is that, after the bizarre thrashing they gave Maserati's excellent Inventions For the New Season last year (4.4? Really?) today they solidify their backlash-loving pop-and-rap cockgobbling nature with a dismal 5.2 for Silver Mt. Zion's 13 Blues For Thirteen Moons, which is still my favourite album of the year and easily my favourite from said band - while at the same time, giving a mysterious pity 7.5 to the absolutely dire new Bauhaus album.
That's quite a generous mark. I would've given Blues for Thirteen Moons 3 or so.
-
Would people want to read a thread in which I said "I'm not too big on pre-Soft Bulletin Flaming Lips" or "I like Aeroplane more than On Avery Island". How about a "Hey The Beatles are pretty cool" thread?
Hold up there buster. There are a lot of people who consider pre-Soft Bulletin to be the best Flaming Lips material, so I don't think that example fits with the others.
Also I like On Avery Island better too.
:-(
-
You see, that's my point. No matter whether people agree or disagree with me, it's a mundane topic because it is first: a matter of personal preference, which is fine to debate subjectively, as long as it hasn't been done countless times not only before, but recently, and frequently. Which this has.
-
The point being that new users do show up sometimes and thus it is justified to, every so often, bring up old topics for shits and giggles.
This is, after all, just entertainment, right?
-
The point being that you felt that it was worthwhile to make another fucking thread about Pitchfork because you, personally, have stopped reading it. This would be comparable to me having made a thread about Godspeed You! Black Emperor because I heard F#A# Infinity for the first time. Everyone agrees; no one cares.
-
Tom Ewing now writes for coprophilia. That is a good thing; his reviews are clever, well-written and insightful. But that's not the point.
It's that, as bad as we all thought coprophilia was a few years ago, it just keeps getting worse.
Here's the four reasons I quit coprophilia
Someone post the Kid A and Jet reviews, they have to be in every coprophilia thread.
Other than that, coprophilia is shit.
OK, you didn't say I was "stupid", but you singled me out. Most people in the thread seem to be getting a kick out of bitching about coprophilia and sharing their examples.
Most people who read coprophilia just download albums anyway.
the only reason i've ever heard the word "coprophilia" used outside of farming is because of you guys.
My life is the music scene. Coprophilia is a part of the music scene. Therefore coprophilia is, like it or not, a part of my life in at least a tangential sense.
I challenge you to take the position that this would not have been a better thread. More word filters in 2008.
-
This would be comparable to me having made a thread about Godspeed You! Black Emperor because I heard F#A# Infinity for the first time.
The difference being I wouldn't post in that thread; I'd shrug and move on.
-
Wait wait, slow down guys. You mean there isn't an elite club we get to join?
-
You would post in that thread about how some other post rock band was better.
Don't lie to yourself man.
-
I might do that, granted, but I wouldn't say the thread was unneccessary.
-
for reference, my post was an achewood joke, not specially directed to you.
n topic, though, i do think this thread is unnecessary but also harmless.
Today I was at work, listening to some inane hold music when i thought that probably a lot of people actually enjoyed it and i started thinking about my own taste in music. Specifically about how a lot of the stuff i like is really just a couiple chords repeated for 10 minutes.
-
I enjoy Pitchfork. I disagree with it 3/4ths of the time, but I still like reading their opinions. And they've introduced me to a few good bands. And in the event that I ever stop enjoying Pitchfork, they're only an internet site, so I could instantly cut myself off from it and never have to think of it again.
So yeah. I fail to see the point in declaring your distaste for a web site. A web site. Shit, there's gotta be what? At least a hundred of the durned things?
-
Then you just shouldn't have posted here. You shouldn't have voiced any disapproval at a tired topic and just moved on. See, now someone's gonna argue with you, and then someone will argue with them, and the circle will go on until it dies a natural death at 90, despite having been brain dead since 12.
-
Fair enough.
-
I might do that, granted, but I wouldn't say the thread was unneccessary.
I am too lazy to find an example but I think this is such massive bullshit that it splits entire tectonic plates when it comes out the bull's ass and hits the ground.
-
I challenge you to take the position that this would not have been a better thread. More word filters in 2008.
I second that emotion.
-
Plus, I think that album does deserve a 9 or so. Solid.
Eminem Show is my favourite of Eminem's records, but I've deliberately posted my reasons for dislking Pitchfork that are nothing to do with the ratings. I couldn't care less what their ratings are if they actually write a damn review and listen to the damn album. It's the fact that the review was an industrial-strength bag of wank.
-
On the posted articles: It's like bad writing has become the new way of measuring how hard-core and indie you are.
well gess wut guyz i can be sedishus too
PHEER HOW INCREDIBLY INDIE I NOW HAVE BECOME!!!11!!!
-
I must confess that my response is similar to Zerodrones--WTF? And I don't like Pitchfork either.
I don't know if this thread is useless, but bitching about it seems to be.
-
The point being that you felt that it was worthwhile to make another fucking thread about Pitchfork because you, personally, have stopped reading it. This would be comparable to me having made a thread about Godspeed You! Black Emperor because I heard F#A# Infinity for the first time. Everyone agrees; no one cares.
You know what we need? More threads about Slint.
-
Man, I always miss the fun threads. I swear...
-
Pitchfork created the culture that you're claiming a place in through this very rejection of P4k
-
Pitchfork was around in the 70s and 80s?
You learn something new every day!
And I am not claiming a place in any culture anyway, except the nebulous "pop culture" which we are all in some way affected by whether we like it or not.
-
Pitchfork created the culture that you're claiming a place in through this very rejection of P4k
I cannae understand what he's sayin' captain!
It dinnae make any sense!
-
I reject the rejection of rejecting rejection of rejecting the non-acceptance of lack of appreciation for Pitchfork.
If you don't agree with me then FUCK YOU
-
It's cool guys a lot of people don't get "it"
-
This is the Spiderland of threads.
-
Hey get your own shitstorm
-
This thread is a rad party to which actual people aren't invited, because it admittedly exists to lure muses (at least seven are named) out of Zerodrone's imagination and into his bedroom: "It's cool guys a lot of people don't get "it"/ This is the Spiderland of threads." He yelps that bit here on a, um, repeat performance of a track from the Fucking Rude album, which you will remember, because the next line is, "Hey get your own shitstorm." The vibe of this moment hews close to the one conveyed by Zerodrone forummate, hero, and fellow English-accent-faker Patrick on some unnamed shit,' "Threads About Slint" back in 1996: "You know what we need/ More threads about Slint." (Except, well, Tommy even hums seriously.)
In 1996, Tommy was where Zerodrone is today: facing a wrathful backlash because the thread's longevity had begun to work against the initial reasons for reader excitement-- what were once singular eccentricities now have become anticipatable. Through some kind of forum transference, the readership, having seen the magician do its favorite trick so many times, convinces itself that it has actually gone backstage. That most Zerodrone readers could likely pen and perform a decent Zerodrone spoof is the reason some now (via projection) accuse Patrick of parodying himself, just as folks used to act like they had Pollard's genius "figured out" because they could joke, "Alright kids, this one's called 'Logo Manchild Umbrage Saloon' off our new EP, Sanguine Flake Emperor! One, two, three, four--"
Mockery usually lacks its target's magic, though, and Tommy is pretty much an untouchable wizard. This thread succeeds despite itself, despite contemporary tastes, and despite the cynicism its grandiosity triggers in us breathing, farting pedestrian mortals. Anyway, one can't be embarrassed for Zerodrone re: this thread's hyperdramatic wince-worthy turns-- or an uptick in his nonsense-syllable scatting thing-- because he clearly does not care what we "think." He's so dedicated to his unbearable fringes that he sells them-- like the kid from junior high so unconcerned with cool that he had to settle for being totally fucking awesome.
Not that Zerodrone doesn't try to have it both ways: The risky, invested intensity of the delivery, leavened with the detachment of it not being so gauche as to specifically mean anything. What a performance the whole thread is. The textual inflections, the real words, the nonwords, the exclamation marks, the rhetoric, the idiocty, pseudo-politeness, soap-opera atmosphere, lulz, and Khar combine to create not so much a thread as a mockery. Mockery is another word, of course, for alcoholic beverage, and this thread is shitfaced, from the leery title's stash of bottles to the wine, sherry, drugs, drunkenness, and high-ness referenced inside. For all the thread's random flailing, the speaker lacks agency-- he wanders around not knowing what time it is in disbelief at intelligence levels. The most rousing, antic, and fun post is about terror, covering up, self development, and waitress fatigue. The closing post, a coherent (for Zerodrone) character study about the ominous redemption of a "wasted" "boozing" Patrick who's "been fucking around," suggests a Zerodrone strutting and drinking his way onto some other troll's stage.
For a hopeful effort, though, some elements are missing. This thread might be Zerodrone's most pompous, profane, and pastoral thread, but it's also his least intelligent, rational, or linearly clever. Zerodrone denies readers old modes of dorksport: I caught only one pun, two snippets of others' rhetoric, and two references to threads. Plus his posts just sound like shit. And part of me buys the argument that this is the ego equivalent of Pitchfork, going through the motions of creating a informative website without allowing the audience a legitimate "in." At first read, the thread seemed long because something was running a little lean. I thought I'd gone from the enjoyable thrill of wondering what Zerodrone was talking about to the jaded position of not caring. But after multiple spins, I'm confusingly seduced by the vermouth-versus-absinthe reverie of its bullshit, pronouncements, and elliptical rhetoric. Here's a guy fussily throwing his whole soul into his camouflage.
I give this thread 7.7
-
(http://overtaken.blogmosis.com/images/bunny.jpg)
-
Man whatever, I was posting stupid pictures in here before it got all trendy
-
MadassAlex, that post totally justified this thread's existence, and that is high praise indeed.
-
"It's... BEAUTIFUL" pic plz
-
That was fucking amazing, Alex.
-
Rating "Do You Like Rock Music?" with an U.2 is just dumb. Fuckers.
It's official. Pitchfork gives "Do You Like Rock Music?" a 21.2.
.rruH
-
I kinda like how all you guys basically dislike Pitchfork because they have some more adventurously formatted reviews.
I dislike them because they have absolutely no taste.
-
Adventurously? I can see how no grammar and no content makes it a lot more interesting reading a review!
-
I kinda like how all you guys basically dislike Pitchfork because they have some more adventurously formatted reviews.
I dislike them because they have absolutely no taste.
I dislike them because reading reviews can be pretty boring at times. I like them because that Jet review was funny as hell.
-
I give Alex's post a 9.1, which I believe puts in the company of Pink, Since I Left You and several 'what the hell were they thinking' albums.
Yes I realize that I was supposed to post a pompous review before the above, but why do so when Alex does it better?
-
I kinda like how all you guys basically dislike Pitchfork because they have some more adventurously formatted reviews.
I dislike them because they have absolutely no taste.
They once gave a Pig Destroyer album a pretty good rap.
-
I kinda like how all you guys basically dislike Pitchfork because they have some more adventurously formatted reviews.
I dislike them because they have absolutely no taste.
There's 'adventurous' then there's fucking dadaist formatting with no content whatsoever.
I'm of the small minority on here who actually enjoys reading a number of PF reviews and comparing their opinions to my own assessments of albums. But when they get all artsy it's just taking the piss. Disagreeing opinions is another matter.
-
Alex I'm calling you out. I thought you wrote that yourself, but you just tweaked the PF Destroyer review (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49459-trouble-in-dreams). Compliment rescinded, sir. COMPLIMENT RESCINDED.
-
I kinda like how all you guys basically dislike Pitchfork because they have some more adventurously formatted reviews.
I dislike them because they have absolutely no taste.
They once gave a Pig Destroyer album a pretty good rap.
That's because no one could ever dislike Phantom Limb regardless of taste.
-
I have nothing of any real import to add here, but I just felt it necessary to interject my opinion. I just don't understand the point of entering a thread and being a dick if you find said thread uninteresting or irrelevant, particularly if there are people participating in the thread and enjoying it. It really is just a matter of preference. And guess what guys! There are fifty bagillion other threads you can go browse! I am sure at least one of them will be worth your time. I know I am not saying anything really new here, but come on people. Seriously?
Also, Alex I still really like your post even if it is a reworked version of a review and not completely original. It made reading this thread so worth it as I laughed a considerable amount at that point. Thanks!
-
That's because no one could ever dislike Phantom Limb regardless of taste.
I dunno, my friend changed his opinion from 'simply dissapointing' to 'pretty good but it's no Terrifyer,' and this is the dude that got me into Pig Destroyer to begin with.
-
Alex I'm calling you out. I thought you wrote that yourself, but you just tweaked the PF Destroyer review (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49459-trouble-in-dreams). Compliment rescinded, sir. COMPLIMENT RESCINDED.
I honestly thought people would be on top of that in an instant. I thought the irony of using that as a template was a better idea than writing a review in any case - like Weird Al recycling pop hits in the name of satire, why fix what ain't broke? Or what is broke but that's the joke here?
If you really, really like I could write my own review, but my bastardisation of the PF Destroyer review pretty much summed up my thoughts anyway. Hey, Pitchfork is good for something. <_< >_>
-
that is my favourite Maserati record. :(
-
I like Nine Inch Nails, and you know, I've gotten used to Pitchfork bashing them (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49274-ghosts-i-iv). Heck, I've even agreed with some of it (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20391-the-fragile?artist_title=20391-the-fragile). I get it, they don't like angsty industrial rock. Noted.
But on the same day that they crap on NIN's new album, they give a 7.5 to Ministry's Cover Up (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49463-cover-up), an album that even the people on Ministry's official fanclub board (http://pissarmy.com/viewtopic.php?t=19822) think sucks.
I just don't understand, are they trying to be iconoclastic here? Or do they just have no consistency?
-
At ^
(http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/9506/jimcramer2id4.jpg)
THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE!
THEY KNOW NOTHING!
-
I liked this thread better when it was a massive internet argument. Fuck all of you turning it back into a reasonable discussion.
-
That's because no one could ever dislike Phantom Limb regardless of taste.
I dunno, my friend changed his opinion from 'simply dissapointing' to 'pretty good but it's no Terrifyer,' and this is the dude that got me into Pig Destroyer to begin with.
more like it's no Prowler in the Yard.
Terrifyer was ok, but Prowler in the Yard is gold.
-
I like Nine Inch Nails, and you know, I've gotten used to Pitchfork bashing them (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49274-ghosts-i-iv). Heck, I've even agreed with some of it (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20391-the-fragile?artist_title=20391-the-fragile). I get it, they don't like angsty industrial rock. Noted.
Ah, NIN bashing. That brings back memories (http://www.tinymixtapes.com/Nine-Inch-Nails). Man I love that review.
-
Or do they just have no consistency?
They have no consistency. The review of Ghosts praises Pretty Hate Machine as being brilliant, yet their review of its re-issue a couple years ago was pretty dire.
"Oh, ambient experimental music? Cool! OH wait, it has Trent Reznor's name on it. Never mind, it's boring, not cool."
-
Alex I'm calling you out. I thought you wrote that yourself, but you just tweaked the PF Destroyer review (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49459-trouble-in-dreams). Compliment rescinded, sir. COMPLIMENT RESCINDED.
I honestly thought people would be on top of that in an instant. I thought the irony of using that as a template was a better idea than writing a review in any case - like Weird Al recycling pop hits in the name of satire, why fix what ain't broke? Or what is broke but that's the joke here?
If you really, really like I could write my own review, but my bastardisation of the PF Destroyer review pretty much summed up my thoughts anyway. Hey, Pitchfork is good for something. <_< >_>
Indeed. Pitchfork is good for something! :)
-
That's because no one could ever dislike Phantom Limb regardless of taste.
I dunno, my friend changed his opinion from 'simply dissapointing' to 'pretty good but it's no Terrifyer,' and this is the dude that got me into Pig Destroyer to begin with.
more like it's no Prowler in the Yard.
Terrifyer was ok, but Prowler in the Yard is gold.
All Pig Destroyer is good. Painter of Dead Girls, even, slays a good deal.
-
That's because no one could ever dislike Phantom Limb regardless of taste.
I dunno, my friend changed his opinion from 'simply dissapointing' to 'pretty good but it's no Terrifyer,' and this is the dude that got me into Pig Destroyer to begin with.
more like it's no Prowler in the Yard.
Terrifyer was ok, but Prowler in the Yard is gold.
All Pig Destroyer is good. Painter of Dead Girls, even, slays a good deal.
ehhhh 38 Counts of Battery was crap, imo.
-
"Oh, ambient experimental music? Cool! OH wait, it has Trent Reznor's name on it. Never mind, it's boring, not cool."
When Radiohead sells song multitracks (charging separately for guitars, bass, vocals, etc.) and sets up a remix website, like Reznor did before them (but for free), Radiohead is innovative!
When Reznor releases music digitally, like Radiohead did before him, Reznor is “biting” on Radiohead.
-
TRONT REUZNAR = SPENGBIB of /mu/
-
Patrick/Anyways, I don't know if I should feel like a dick telling you this, but derailing threads with one and two-line jokes is kind of annoying. This is what PMs were invented for!
:wink:
-
You feel like a dick? While talking to me? After the epic page-and-a-half derailment that I already achieved that was waaaaaay more epic than a shitty, 4chan referencing one-liner?
You can't be serious.
-
It was a joke based on what Anyways had posted in the Mediafire thread. Hence the winky smiley.
-
Shit, as if I needed to spend MORE time lurking here...
-
I just read that review and it seems like one of those things where I heard one thing in the album and the reviewer heard something entirely different. It's pretty telling, to me, that his criticisms (odd sequencing, bombast, Menuck's supposed ego) and mine (off-key vocals, lack of diction masking otherwise interesting lyrics) have absolutely nothing in common.
It's not a particularly "bad" review even by PF standards- that infamous Jet review, while funny, exemplifies everything NOT to do when writing about music, and the review of Mastodon's Leviathan spent more time bashing other bands for not being as "metal" as Mastodon than it did actually talking about the album in question. THAT'S the kind of writing on Pitchfork that pisses me off, but then you get things like the generally excellent "month in" series, Metal* and Techno being an effective Cliffs Notes of the current state of both genres.
So Zerodrone I don't really get why a couple of reviews you disagree with are enough to make you "quit" the site. Are they just straws that finally broke the camel's back? That's as valid a reason as any, I am just wondering.
*here is where Khar yells at me for agreeing with Brendan Stosuy's opinions
-
Straw/back. If I can't count on them to give a halfway decent review to albums I already know about, I don't think I will ever learn about a new band from them unless I use a reverse-psychology "the lower the score, the better the album" deal.
Which, actually, might work, since they gave Vampire Weekend and the new Bauhaus good scores and Silver Mt. Zion, Maserati, the new NIN bad ones.
Also, LOL @ their review of a Sloan album saying "Sloan is nobody's favorite band; even their mothers probably don't put them in the Top 10". That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on there aside from the review of Andrew W.K.'s I Get Wet.
-
Yeah I get most of my new-band info from BitTorrent anyway these days.
My favorite thing about PF is the utter lack of internal consistency, which I think someone else has mentioned in this thread. My favorite example is the original review of Daft Punk's Discovery (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/16831-discovery). Contrast that with VIRTUALLY ANYTHING ELSE ON THE SITE, which by and large treats Daft Punk like the Beatles of the millennial era.
It's a funny thing, because Schreiber DOES exert editorial control- I have it on good authority from PF writers that he's changed review scores, at the very least. I just find it oddly passive-aggressive to exact that kind of editing and yet not make the slightest attempt at a consistent overall editorial "feel" (beyond the "build up a band and then tear them down" thing they've done so often, which is a whole other can of worms).
-
Much to my surprise: a good review! (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/48766-red-yellow-blue)
-
The problem I've found is that it's pretty impossible to tell whether a review has any merit unless you've already heard the album it's reviewing, which is true of other music sites as well, but is a form of music journalism I find ridiculous. It's especially bad in some P4k reviews because some of them literally don't discuss the sound of the album at all.
-
I think they did that with the review of Mr. Beast. If I remember correctly all the reviewer did was bitch and complain about how mogwai wasn't writing ten minute songs anymore.
-
Yeah, the Mr. Beast review pretty well epitomizes what I hate about Mogwai reviews. They hit the two major annoying points:
1. "It's no Young Team, which is their best album." There is some serious rose-colored nostalgia for Young Team, I think, because even as rabid a Mogwai fan as I am cannot possibly call it their best album. It was a nice piece of work from some very young, very inexperienced lads but it hardly matches the complexity and nuance that they would later develop.
2. "Mogwai's best songs are the loud ones." Another popular opinion which seems curious given that the actual majority of their recorded output has been more quiet than loud, and that the band is obviously interested more in beauty than bombast.
-
Yeah, the Mr. Beast review pretty well epitomizes what I hate about Mogwai reviews. They hit the two major annoying points:
1. "It's no Young Team, which is their best album." There is some serious rose-colored nostalgia for Young Team, I think, because even as rabid a Mogwai fan as I am cannot possibly call it their best album. It was a nice piece of work from some very young, very inexperienced lads but it hardly matches the complexity and nuance that they would later develop.
2. "Mogwai's best songs are the loud ones." Another popular opinion which seems curious given that the actual majority of their recorded output has been more quiet than loud, and that the band is obviously interested more in beauty than bombast.
one of my favourite albums, ever, is Rock Action. though, I was really never one to read pitchfork for legitimate reviews or anything. even Mogwai doesn't know why Young Team is good anymore.
-
This is as good a forum as anything.
Hi guys. I'm Nescience, for any of you who still remember me (Khar, where are you to intelligently point me to mental metal????).
Anyway, I'm now writing for Pitchfork, though many of you will crucify me for such. Check out hte review for the band Strategy today (Thursday) and I hope you will get with what I'm talking about.
On a similar note, Naruto needs to show his stuff and Faye & Marten will eventually do it.
-
*points and hoots*
-
Yeah... but
www.pitchfork.tv
HOLY SITE!!!
(that started as a typo... but I liked it)
Anyways... Pitchfork.tv is fucking incredible.
As for pitchfork media .com yeah... the site is often stuck soo far up it's own ass that it's rediculous. But when it's good, it's really fucking good.
For example: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/38853-shine-on
-
Oh man, Strategy. I upped Future Rock awhile back to the MF thread, don't know if anybody actually got to it. I've been listening to it a lot lately.
*points, hoots*
-
Thank you Pitchfork for sucking so much. Cheers to QC Forums for ripping into their inconsistency, wannabe hipster status, and lack of a quality direction (they have direction, it is just heading straight into the septic tank).
-
Can I start being my asshole self again yet? Pretty please? It's killing me
-
wannabe hipster status
Okay this is hilarious.
Deride PF as much as you want, but claiming that they're *wannabe* hipsters is pretty ridiculous considering what a huge tastemaker the site has (for better or worse) become.
Then again, some people think I'M a "wannabe hipster" because I talk about bands on my website.
-
Jeph, no-one wants any of your indie hipster shit in this thread, you pitchfork lover!
Do you get it? It's irony, you see. Much laffs.
-
so THAT'S this "irony" I keep hearing about
-
Yes!
Let me show you how it works.
It's 'ironic' that you've not heard of 'irony' given your hipster status.
Say it with me, kids!
-
Oooh, kinda-sorta defended by none other than Mr. Jacques himself! :mrgreen:
I dunno: I feel like it's all good intentions, good intentions. I certainly just like to write and hope folks agree, or intelligently disagree. That's it.
-
It's ridiculous to assume Pitchfork writers are anything other than music lovers doing their best to promote the bands they love. Plus they have a really super music festival now.
There's really nothing sinister about Pitchfork, I just don't read it because I'm happy out of the loop for the time being.
-
It's ridiculous to assume Pitchfork writers are anything other than music lovers doing their best to promote the bands they love.
I don’t think anyone would argue this. But at the same time, I often get a feeling that the culture there has become permeated with the necessity of being on the bleeding edge of new musical developments, as well as the knowledge that Pitchfork has already been a huge force in popularizing particular bands and movements in the past. That cultural history manifests as egocentricity of the reviewing staff as tastemakers, the undertone that the reviewer is of comparable importance to the reviewee.
And I’d be willing to bet that if you asked any writer there, they wouldn’t even be cognizant of it. Workplace cultures (or any other group cultures) can have subtle yet powerful effects on individuals who act inside them.
-
Interesting. I actually think that one of the problems with Pitchfork is that they are very aware of their place as trend-setters, which becomes incredibly infuriating when Schreiber makes another bad call about a band and the rest of his writers clunk into step behind him.
For all of a month or so, a while back I gave them a chance and bought a few records at their recommendation. I can't help but notice that the bands they tend to champion have a very limited shelf-life. A serious problem with printed music media is that they are always so keen to break news about the best new band in the world and somehow it has also happened at Pitchfork. I don't really understand why it is necessary to pile massive acclaim on a band with one album, especially since those kind of bands tend to buckle later down the line under the weight of expectation. Bands with one album are fragile. You don't know where they are going to go next. You don't know if that album you insisted was amazing for all of three months is going to age particularly well. Then when you realise you've dropped it from your iPod six months down the line, it's too late. A hundred thousand white-belted, septum-pierced teenagers have already made that band huge. Then, as corporate hegemony inevitably kicks in, the major labels come in and sign five piss weak clones of a band that wasn't very good in the first place on the grounds that "this is what the kids must be listening to these days". We all suffer the blandness of these bands and the inevitable accusations of 'elitism' for daring to think that a band with one hyped record isn't going to explode the universe. All the while, great music goes relatively unnoticed.
Like I said, there's nothing sinister about it but I can't help but think that the whole organisitation would benefit enormously from a little bit more forward thinking.
-
It's ridiculous to assume Pitchfork writers are anything other than music lovers doing their best to promote the bands they love.
This would be an arguable premise if the albums reviewed were consistently reviewed by people who seem to be very familiar with the band/genre in question, which is blatantly not the case much of the time, most obviously showcased by the embarassingly large number of factual errors.
-
Interesting. I actually think that one of the problems with Pitchfork is that they are very aware of their place as trend-setters, which becomes incredibly infuriating when Schreiber makes another bad call about a band and the rest of his writers clunk into step behind him.
For all of a month or so, a while back I gave them a chance and bought a few records at their recommendation. I can't help but notice that the bands they tend to champion have a very limited shelf-life. A serious problem with printed music media is that they are always so keen to break news about the best new band in the world and somehow it has also happened at Pitchfork. I don't really understand why it is necessary to pile massive acclaim on a band with one album, especially since those kind of bands tend to buckle later down the line under the weight of expectation. Bands with one album are fragile. You don't know where they are going to go next. You don't know if that album you insisted was amazing for all of three months is going to age particularly well. Then when you realise you've dropped it from your iPod six months down the line, it's too late. A hundred thousand white-belted, septum-pierced teenagers have already made that band huge. Then, as corporate hegemony inevitably kicks in, the major labels come in and sign five piss weak clones of a band that wasn't very good in the first place on the grounds that "this is what the kids must be listening to these days". We all suffer the blandness of these bands and the inevitable accusations of 'elitism' for daring to think that a band with one hyped record isn't going to explode the universe. All the while, great music goes relatively unnoticed.
Like I said, there's nothing sinister about it but I can't help but think that the whole organisitation would benefit enormously from a little bit more forward thinking.
Exactly: novelty does not equal quality. But when you publish near-constantly, novelty is what makes a bigger impact. Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2179977/entry/2179978/) did a dialog piece between three music critics (Rob Christgau is one) about end-of-year lists where they touch upon that problem, among others: that music that's good and solid but not necessarily novel gets overlooked.
But that I can understand. What I'd be interested in is some sort of reasoning behind why certain bands are continuously lionized by Pitchfork---Radiohead is the obvious cliche here, or Daft Punk (aside from the anomalous Discovery review jeph pointed out)---while others are forgotten or fall to backlash.
In any case, I've been trying to limit my of-the-moment music intake recently, for precisely the reason you give: the majority of new music that's drawing attention now is most likely not going to hold up over time. I figure that there's plenty of awesome music that I haven’t heard that’s already stood the test of time. And anything that's popular now that's legitimately great will still be great if I hold off until the initial hype dies down.
-
For all of a month or so, a while back I gave them a chance and bought a few records at their recommendation. I can't help but notice that the bands they tend to champion have a very limited shelf-life. A serious problem with printed music media is that they are always so keen to break news about the best new band in the world and somehow it has also happened at Pitchfork. I don't really understand why it is necessary to pile massive acclaim on a band with one album, especially since those kind of bands tend to buckle later down the line under the weight of expectation. Bands with one album are fragile. You don't know where they are going to go next. You don't know if that album you insisted was amazing for all of three months is going to age particularly well. Then when you realise you've dropped it from your iPod six months down the line, it's too late. A hundred thousand white-belted, septum-pierced teenagers have already made that band huge. Then, as corporate hegemony inevitably kicks in, the major labels come in and sign five piss weak clones of a band that wasn't very good in the first place on the grounds that "this is what the kids must be listening to these days". We all suffer the blandness of these bands and the inevitable accusations of 'elitism' for daring to think that a band with one hyped record isn't going to explode the universe. All the while, great music goes relatively unnoticed.
Bit of a tangent, but this is basically why I stopped trying to catch up with what's considered good music right now. Especially for a person as inexperienced as myself, it just doesn't make sense for me to try to get to know all the hipster bands of the now rather than getting to know important music from before.
I hope these aren't bad examples, but take bands like...The Gossip, or Glass Candy, or maybe even more recently, Vampire Weekend. When I listened to their music it seemed nice enough but there's no way to tell if it will be significant enough to matter in some years until, well, years have passed. If they really are important to spend time listening to, then I don't care if I end up getting into them in ten years as opposed to right now. Seriously. I don't feel bad about not having listened to any albums by Animal Collective or the Flaming Lips yet, because if it's as good as people claim, it'll still be worth listening to later. In the meantime I'm listening to music that's new to me, even if it wasn't created recently. I do it slowly, but whatever.
On the other hand, I do understand the importance of supporting musicians who are making a living in the present. That's legitimate. I'm just saying that I've stopped caring about myself as being recognized as one who knows what's hot now. Maybe eventually once my taste has been developed enough I will be able to recognize what is good, progressive music, but I can't do it now without being forced to depend on trends.
-
:-D - OMG SOULMATES
-
That's cool. Hype has always been a massive turn off for me but it's hard to get that stance across without sounding like you are being deliberately contrary. It's not that I don't like things that are popular, I just hate the actual process of making things popular. Especially in music.
By some genuinely ridiculous coincidence, I had my iPod on shuffle and the Thee Headcoats anthem 'We Hate the Fucking NME' came on. Given Rynne's sig and the conversation, that's a highly appropriate soundtrack. :wink:
-
Music of the moment has charms that transcend the hype though. It's a great feeling to a listen to a hook that you've never heard before. Even with great albums that you've never had the chance to really appreciate, there's often (though definitely not always) a familiarity that might not be reflected in the next new band (obviously I'm not talking about Messrs. Graceland redux here). More significantly, music of the moment can reflect the latest in the evolution of musical production, instrumentation, songwriting and tastes. So electic music fans find themselves listening to new albums for the same reason that political nerds read the newspaper every morning. Staying contemporary is its own reward (for some people).
I think it's funny though when you compare these posts against the arc of musical interests of the protagonist in Nick Hornby's High Fidelity. He starts out the book obsessively tracking every new band in London and admits near the end that he hardly recognizes some of the bands that are playing at the local small venues (but reaches some kind of spiritual awakening about nice people with crappy music collections).
-
It's true. Most of the bands I'm excited it about either aren't new, aren't doing anything new, or like Glassjaw I'm just late to the game and so they haven't actually released anythign in six years. I'm not massively into new music. I tend to write more than I listen these days (that is, as far as new stuff, I still buy shit-tons of older CDs).
I still fucking love Gallows, though.
-
Music in Britain is atrocious right now.
Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, we've had great (in my humble opinion) albums by Islands, The Kills, Tapes 'N Tapes, The Black Keys, DeVotchKa, Gnarls Barkley, Stephen Malkmus And the Jicks (to name a few) drop or leak in the past two months. So I'm pretty happy with the State of New Music at the moment.
-
Staying contemporary is its own reward (for some people).
See, I used to think that, but now, the only thing that staying contemporary has to recommend it is being familiar with new bands when they're in town on tour. Or maybe picking up some snazzy limited-edition release that will be gone next year.
It's not to say that I'm becoming totally stagnant in my tastes, nor that I'm less appreciative of today's trends than I have in the past. But the appeal of staying completely current is passing me by---and I consider that a good thing. It means that I've realized that other eras of music were as vibrant as the current one, so there's no need to stay obsessively focused on staying up to date. Frankly, I've got no one to impress with ferreting out the next big thing first, and I'm not wasting my time chasing trends when I could be experiencing something older but better.
You know, it's like, I haven't heard Spiderland. I haven't heard Fun House. I haven't heard Bitches Brew or Autobahn or In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. Most of Tom Waits' discography is a mystery to me. All of Leonard Cohen's is. It seems like any effort I put into seeking out and absorbing those will be rewarded at least equally to any effort put into staying up-to-date in April 2008.
-
I think the only bands I have listened to that are actually still together/alive are Ted Leo, Wilco, and like... Cake. And even Cake are a stretch, the only thing they put out in the last 4 years is a cover album.
-
True facts: Never even heard of Portishead.
Edit: I downloaded their debut album. What the hell is this? It sounds like somebody chloroform-kidnapped Kool Keith's beatmaster and got him on an IV chock full of ketamine, and only then was he allowed to make music again.
-
He is, they probably live somewhere in the magical 5%.
I can't think of any way to describe the Australian music scene but one imagery does come to mind: driving through a desert. Sure there is the occasional rare shrub or, even rarer, cactus, watering hole or wild animal but it's relatively barren (i.e. boring) and artificial.
Is Nick Cave the shrub, cactus, watering hole or wild animal? I'm guessing wild animal. Which would make Architecture in Helsinki the water hole, and The Avalanches the cactus. Still working on who the shrub is.
-
Mick from Crocodile Dundee?
-
There is more than one of each.
-
Weren't Men at Work from Australia?
-
AC/DC nullifies at least 3 of those.
-
There is more than one of each.
Sure there is. If you count Crowded House.
Fuck.
Crowded.
House.
-
on a similar note, check out this article.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8 (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/pitchfork_gives_music_6_8)
-
Is Nick Cave the shrub, cactus, watering hole or wild animal? I'm guessing wild animal. Which would make Architecture in Helsinki the water hole, and The Avalanches the cactus. Still working on who the shrub is.
Are these seriously the only remotely contemporary Australian bands anybody has heard of?
-
Is Nick Cave the shrub, cactus, watering hole or wild animal? I'm guessing wild animal. Which would make Architecture in Helsinki the water hole, and The Avalanches the cactus. Still working on who the shrub is.
Are these seriously the only remotely contemporary Australian bands anybody has heard of?
Well, there's a positive spin you can put to this. Everyone's forgotten about Jet!
-
I for one am a huge fan of Bridezilla and have been since I heard 'em on FBi.
-
Are these seriously the only remotely contemporary Australian bands anybody has heard of?
Dirty Three?
I generally actually have no clue where the fuck most bands I listen to are from, so.
-
You know, I just use Pitchfork to pick up some band names and see for myself if I like it instead of letting them decide. Screw those reviews, I can make up my own taste.
Now I'm probably no hipster, but what the hell. xD
-
Rating "Do You Like Rock Music?" with an U.2 is just dumb. Fuckers.
It's official. Pitchfork gives "Do You Like Rock Music?" a 21.2.
.rruH
Gyah, they did it again. The reissue of Mantronix (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/49807-mantronix-the-album-deluxe-edition) got a rating of 8.08. Like a TR-808, get it? I assume that it's still a high-7/low-8-ish album, but why abandon an excessively-precise numerical rating system to make a stupid pun?