THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

  • 28 Apr 2024, 05:11
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About  (Read 34962 times)

Will

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Creeeeeeeepy bear HEARTS YOU!!!
    • William James (author page)
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #50 on: 10 Jan 2007, 03:18 »

I'm not sure that I buy "they gave an album I really like a bad review" as a valid reason for outright hating a music review site, to be honest, nor do I think the fact that they gave Converge glowing reviews on their last three albums a reason for me to clamor that "Pitchfork is the greatest site evar!"
I don't really pay a great deal of attention to Pitchfork other than that sometimes when I'm bored at work, I'll read the reviews out of a passing curiousity.  Sometimes I find it fascinating to see how a site that is admittedly fairly skewed to the "indie-rock" perspective interprets albums by artists outside that scope.  I'm rather surprised that they gave such high marks to the new Converge.  I like to read what they have to say about some of the rap artists.  I've definately read worse writing on other review sites - if we're counting printed publications, AP is by far a worse offender.  So I guess after all that, my conclusion on the whole Pitchfork debate is....meh.

I think I understand what you're trying to do Johnny, but really, I don't see much point in arguing beyond "if you don't like it, don't go."  As far as I'm concerned, it's just a SFW link to go to whenever I'm at work and the forum is dead. 
Logged
Quote from: JohhnyC
In grade six one of my classmates during sex ed asked if the penis could be broken. The teacher's response was "Not in the same way you'd break a bone. I still wouldn't take a hammer to it or anything."

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #51 on: 10 Jan 2007, 04:48 »

I think I understand what you're trying to do Johnny, but really, I don't see much point in arguing beyond "if you don't like it, don't go."

If whether or not one should go is the desired topic of conversation then yeah, you're right. The topic in this instance is "WHY should you go or shouldn't you go," and if you look at the thread title then the latter is what people are already set towards, which mostly pisses me off because it excludes reasonable debate.

DynamiteKid, that's fair because you are essentially discussing the former topic in the last paragraph and nobody, myself included, has been capable of providing a rebuttal beyond "subjectively, some may like the writing."
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Inlander

  • coprophage
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,152
  • Hug your local saintly donkey.
    • Instant Life Substitute
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #52 on: 10 Jan 2007, 05:01 »

they gave a 6.8 to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" when it first came out. Last year when the reissue was released, and Pitchfork had some time to see how big a fanbase Neutral Milk Hotel had gained, they changed the album's score to a 10. Mind you, nothing about the album had been changed (maybe they remastered it or something but that doesn't matter enough)

This isn't a valid criticism of any publication, as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can prove that their opinion was changed simply because of the band's increased popularity, or that they have a record of habitually giving reissues higher marks than the original release, then it's absurd to criticise Pitchfork simply because of this. Have you never revisited an album several years after you first heard it, and found out that it's actually much better than you remember it being? Human beings are not set in stone: their likes and dislikes fluctuate with time. This is especially the case when you have a group of them, as at Pitchfork. God knows I've changed my opinions about some music in the last eight years.

Whether you hate Pitchfork or REALLY FUCKING HATE Pitchfork

From the original post. Here's a prime example, I think, of what Johnny is talking about: hatred is assumed right from the start. This is not the first Pitchfork thread we've had, and they're invariably set up with a mob mentality: not "let's talk about Pitchfork", but "let's heap shit on Pitchfork". As I said in my earlier post, WHAT'S THE POINT, GUYS?
« Last Edit: 10 Jan 2007, 05:03 by Inlander »
Logged

Chesire Cat

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,363
  • Standing proudly behind unpopular opinions
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #53 on: 10 Jan 2007, 06:00 »

Pitchforks merits dont really fall under their journalistic integrity, even if they believe it about themselves.

The reviews are extremely subjective, and the reviewers like to put a spin on the reviews sometimes so they arent so dry.  Its not the Mecca of indie music, but it is a good indication of whats going on in the indie world(and I dont me the *actual* indie bands on independant labels).  Accept it for that and its ok, when its taken it too literally and the reviews viewed as canon thats when people start to dislike it.

And my bit about indie snobs gets parody time and time again in Questionable Content, hell I think even Nothing Nice to Say and Diesel Sweeties make occasional jabs at it.  Its the idea that once something gets a certain level of success its somehow inferior to what it once was.  Every bands first album was the best, I used to like such and such until they sold out etc.  The ultra new and not yet heard of is the indie holy grail, until any for of success is achieved.  And those arent realistic regulations to place on a website that is essentially spearheading(pitchforking) the battle to get indie into the mainstream.

Im not fighting for Pitchfork as some sort of fanboy, I just would like the haters to try looking at it in a differently light.  Its more of a tool than anything.
Logged
"In this zero sum game everything given to another, reduces me"

Ben yayayayayayayay

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • You are so handsome. You are my friend.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #54 on: 10 Jan 2007, 09:56 »

they gave a 6.8 to "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" when it first came out. Last year when the reissue was released, and Pitchfork had some time to see how big a fanbase Neutral Milk Hotel had gained, they changed the album's score to a 10. Mind you, nothing about the album had been changed (maybe they remastered it or something but that doesn't matter enough)

This isn't a valid criticism of any publication, as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can prove that their opinion was changed simply because of the band's increased popularity, or that they have a record of habitually giving reissues higher marks than the original release, then it's absurd to criticise Pitchfork simply because of this. Have you never revisited an album several years after you first heard it, and found out that it's actually much better than you remember it being? Human beings are not set in stone: their likes and dislikes fluctuate with time. This is especially the case when you have a group of them, as at Pitchfork. God knows I've changed my opinions about some music in the last eight years.

I can't prove such a thing. But the fact that they don't address their old review of the album in the new review, then delete the original, tells me they're trying to hide their old opinions for the sake of indie cred. Mmmhmmm

And I know it doesn't make sense that I would dislike something just because we share different views, but Mellon Collie poons too hard IMO. Cop:  :police:
Key phrase "IMO"
Logged
If you fight fire with fire, you will just make a bigger fire. Yes.
But if you fight fire with crystals, and ice bulbs, you will put the fire out and the crystals will turn to diamonds!

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #55 on: 10 Jan 2007, 10:49 »

They probably deleted the old album because they wanted the review of the re-issue to stand as their evaluation of the album.

There's been plenty of reissues that they've also given okay or poor scores to. Arbitrary "cred" has nothing to do with it.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Will

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Creeeeeeeepy bear HEARTS YOU!!!
    • William James (author page)
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #56 on: 10 Jan 2007, 11:03 »

I honestly don't know how their rating system works, so this may be a stupid question, but were the two reviews even done by the same person?  Couldn't that explain the difference in scores?
Logged
Quote from: JohhnyC
In grade six one of my classmates during sex ed asked if the penis could be broken. The teacher's response was "Not in the same way you'd break a bone. I still wouldn't take a hammer to it or anything."

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #57 on: 10 Jan 2007, 11:18 »

To be quite honest, I prefer Magnet's reviewing style. They eschew grading and scoring altogether in favour of simply writing about the music. It works surprisingly well.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Hat

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,536
  • bang bang a suckah MC shot me down
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #58 on: 10 Jan 2007, 13:03 »

Writing?!?

ABOUT the music?

.
..
...

SORCERY, I SAY.

I really could handle pitchfork if their reviews could describe 3 minute tracks with nice simple terms. I do not mind that epic fifteen minute pieces need words like "sweeping" and "grandoise" in their reviews, but there are so few reviews that have adequate descriptions of the album that I just don't see the point. All the non-review stuff is pretty ok and I check it out from time to time, and its nice to see whats coming out, but I will shoot my dick off before I read another one of their CD reviews.

And I don't even know where I'd get a gun from.
Logged
Quote from: Emilio
power metal set in the present is basically crunk

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #59 on: 11 Jan 2007, 22:58 »

I'm going to have to agree that the Neutral Milk Hotel review is total revisionist history.  We're talking about a re-issue of an album that wasn't even a decade old.

Notice that, even before that album was re-issued, they "re-did" their "Top 100 of the 90s" list - deleting the old list entirely - and moved Aeroplane Over the Sea up from 85 to 4.  I don't see how ANYONE could defend "re-doing" that list just a couple years after the original as anything other than them trying to look more relevant (the original list was much more mainstream/grunge centric).
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

eepedeep

  • Guest
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #60 on: 11 Jan 2007, 23:48 »

In some cases Pitchfork has shown signs of sanity (in the ratings of New Pornographers' Twin Cinema, Arcade Fire's Funeral, and Animal Collective's Feels), but in most of all the other ratings the reviewers proved themselves to be cold-hearted, and probably insecure bullies.
(Specif outraged with the ratings of Arcade Fire's EP and Cat Power's The Greatest.)
The moral is don't let a stupid number, which cannot sum up the ambience of an album, affect your music purchases.
Logged

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #61 on: 12 Jan 2007, 00:22 »

I'm going to have to agree that the Neutral Milk Hotel review is total revisionist history.  We're talking about a re-issue of an album that wasn't even a decade old.

And if the record company has a right to re-release it, Pitchfork doesn't have the right to re-evaluate it?
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #62 on: 12 Jan 2007, 00:53 »

And if the record company has a right to re-release it, Pitchfork doesn't have the right to re-evaluate it?

Technically, yes, but the re-issue of that album had no bonus material and was not in any way different from the original.  It was not even technically a "re-issue", it was simply a "re-printing" because it had been out of print for a couple years.  Labels re-print albums all the time, and Pitchfork doesn't review them.
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #63 on: 12 Jan 2007, 01:17 »

This review, which denotes the seven-year passage of time between the original release and the re-release on a different label? Keep in mind we're arguing over this one revision, the invalidity of which I'm still not convinced about, undermining an entire website's credibility.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #64 on: 12 Jan 2007, 01:38 »

I'm not arguing that said review "invalidates their credibility".

I'm simply exercising my right to be cynical about their motives.  As I mentioned before, I think the "Whoops!  Let's Try That Again" revision of their "Top 100 of the 90s" is far more telling than that NMH review.  I wasn't even the one who originally brought that review up.

I reserve my right to be a cynical old man.
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

TheFuriousWombat

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,513
    • WXBC Bard College Radio Online
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #65 on: 12 Jan 2007, 04:00 »

re-reviewing a re-printing so drastically is a sign of shoddy reviewing if you ask me. even though i find their second review far more accurate, since i do feel that album deserves a 10, it's still fairly unacceptable to do what pitchfork did. i tend to find their reviews inconsistent. recently, giving the best album of the year to the knife for example. i think there are certainly things they've done right (albiet not too many) but overall i try to avoid taking any stock in what they say.
Logged
I punched all the girls in the face on the way to the booth to vote for Hitler.

Hollow Press (my blog)

Kyros

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 314
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #66 on: 12 Jan 2007, 04:34 »

I like Pitchfork, and I check it everyday.  The music reviews for the most part are pretty stupid, but they're news coverage, interviews, and features are all good reads for the  most part.  The music reviews aren't even that bad, although it does seem like they choose some rather odd things to start to LOVE

Llike Justin Timberlake for example, J.T. could make the greatest record of all time ever of ever and I still wouldn't be able to bring myself to listen to it seriously simply because the dude was in friggin N'SYNC.  Sure that's rather stubborn and stupid of me, but I can't help it.
Logged

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #67 on: 12 Jan 2007, 04:57 »

It's not just Pitchfork, a lot of indie types have decreed that Justin Timberlake is somehow OK to like, despite not being particularly different from any other pop music they normally would bash.  Every few years there has to be a Token Pop Guilty Pleasure for hipsters.  Before Justin I believe it was Kylie Minogue.
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

Ben yayayayayayayay

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • You are so handsome. You are my friend.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #68 on: 12 Jan 2007, 07:52 »

And before Kylie Minogue, I believe Jeff Mangum pooned this thread. He pooned it hXc with the siamese twins being all freezing to death and stuff, then he pooned it the straight edge way all xXx and whatnot being all playing a piano filled with flames as a little Spanish boy and junk and stuff.
Logged
If you fight fire with fire, you will just make a bigger fire. Yes.
But if you fight fire with crystals, and ice bulbs, you will put the fire out and the crystals will turn to diamonds!

TheFuriousWombat

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,513
    • WXBC Bard College Radio Online
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #69 on: 12 Jan 2007, 08:16 »

umm.......those aren't the most literature neutral milk hotel lyric refrences i've ever seen, so i'm not really sure what you're getting at. but any praise for jeff mangum is good in my book.
Logged
I punched all the girls in the face on the way to the booth to vote for Hitler.

Hollow Press (my blog)

Kyros

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 314
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #70 on: 12 Jan 2007, 08:18 »

In case anyone forgot...

Logged

Chesire Cat

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,363
  • Standing proudly behind unpopular opinions
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #71 on: 12 Jan 2007, 08:19 »

Thing about JT is he is the absolute best at what he does.  And anyone who cant respect that is a hater, and what the hell, arent we a little over hating things?  Isnt the whole indie revolution about intelligent people being open minded towards things convention implies they should hate?  I dont know about you, but I like JT, more for what he represents than his music.

Also name dropping Jeff Magnum is just indie assholes' way of of being indie assholes.  You think 95% of the 1st world has any idea who Neutral Milk Hotel is, let alone Jeff Magnum.  He was never mainstream, deal with it.
« Last Edit: 12 Jan 2007, 08:21 by Chesire Cat »
Logged
"In this zero sum game everything given to another, reduces me"

TheFuriousWombat

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,513
    • WXBC Bard College Radio Online
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #72 on: 12 Jan 2007, 08:26 »

of course, it's entierly possible that, in a discussion about excellent music, one might mention jeff mangum's work as an example of said music. every refrence to him and neutral milk hotel is certainly not some indie asshole trying to show off his or her knowledge of obscura (which i wouldn't even consdier nmh to fall into, being a very popular indie band in the indie music world). whenever i mention mangum, it's because of my immense appreciation, often bordering on awe, for his music and his lyrics.
Logged
I punched all the girls in the face on the way to the booth to vote for Hitler.

Hollow Press (my blog)

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #73 on: 12 Jan 2007, 08:55 »

Wait.  I didn't say Justin Timberlake is bad.  I'm just saying that he's just another in a string of phenomenon whereby hipsters like something they would normally bash.  It's kind of like all those emo kids who listen to Slayer.

And I still don't think JT or Kylie Minogue is anywhere near as good as Annie.
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

Ben yayayayayayayay

  • Bizarre cantaloupe phobia
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
  • You are so handsome. You are my friend.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #74 on: 12 Jan 2007, 12:18 »

I believe I was the one to name drop Jeffy. If you use your I's to REED you will C that I only mentioned his little band because it was completely relevant to the thread. Plus I'm liek totally awesome for knowing about Neutral Milk Hotel cause liek nobody knows about them except for me so that makes me cool and stuff lol.
Logged
If you fight fire with fire, you will just make a bigger fire. Yes.
But if you fight fire with crystals, and ice bulbs, you will put the fire out and the crystals will turn to diamonds!

glwtta

  • Emoticontraindication
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 57
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #75 on: 13 Jan 2007, 00:49 »

I dont know about you, but I like JT, more for what he represents than his music.

How ironic, that's what I dislike him for.  Don't really have much of an opinion about his music, one way or the other, it's just not my kind of thing.
Logged

Kyros

  • Pneumatic ratchet pants
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 314
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #76 on: 13 Jan 2007, 23:38 »

Just to keep this on topic..

Silversun Pickups were a band Pitchfork was wrong about. They cave the Pickups' 2006 album Carnavas a rather scathing review.  Style simalarites to the Smashing Pumpkins aside, the album is a really good listen and a certain highlight of last year.  It was weird how varying Websites differed in opinion on it.  Pitchfork hated it yet woxy.com had it quite high on their year end list.
Logged

E. Spaceman

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,630
  • The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics The Sonics
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #77 on: 14 Jan 2007, 01:22 »

wait, different people had different opinions?
Logged
Quote
[20:29] Quietus: Haha oh shit Morbid Anal Fog
[20:29] Quietus: I had forgotten about them

fish across face

  • The German Chancellory building
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • Fugu, I won't do what you tell me.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #78 on: 14 Jan 2007, 13:00 »

This isn't true either. Almost every band they have gone nuts about in the last two years has been on a major label. Their number two album on the 'Best of 2006' was the TV On The Radio album on Interscope. That's actually my main problem with Pitchfork. They give bands that already have so much exposure even more. It's just become an online version of every other music mag in America.
Is this accurate?  Here are the labels that their best of 2006 albums are on. 

[!K7]
[1st and 15th/Atlantic]
[4AD]
[4AD/Interscope]
[Absolutely Kosher]
[Ace Fu]
[Astralwerks]
[Bpitch Control]
[Capitol]
[Carpark]
[Def Jam]
[DFA/EMI]
[Diwphalanx/Southern Lord]
[Domino]
[Drag City]
[Ecstatic Peace/Universal]
[Gangsta Grillz]
[Geffen]
[Get Physical]
[Grand Hustle/Atlantic]
[Ibid]
[Illegal Art]
[iTunes]
[Jive] x2
[Kranky]
[Matador] x6
[Memphis Industries]
[Merge] x4
[Mute]
[Parlophone/EMI]
[Rabid/Mute]
[Reprise]
[Rough Trade]
[Secretly Canadian]
[Stones Throw]
[Sub Pop] x2
[Thrill Jockey]
[Tirk/Word and Sound]
[Vagrant]
[Warp]
[Wichita/V2]

Some of them are major labels, yes, but it's not exactly a staggering majority.  Now I know this doesn't cover "almost every band they have gone nuts about in the last two years" but presumably it's indicative of roughly the range of things Pitchfork's varied bunch of writers (many of whom aren't even in America, let alone Chicago) give a shit about.

Do you know of an American music magazine that put Scott Walker's The Drift in their top 10 albums of the year?  Which other American music mags highly rate releases on German tech house labels like BPitch Control or Get Physical?  (That Booka Shade album really is the knackers, btw)

Out of curiosity, I know Matador had a stint as part of a major, but they're an indie again, aren't they?
« Last Edit: 14 Jan 2007, 15:23 by fish across face »
Logged

fish across face

  • The German Chancellory building
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • Fugu, I won't do what you tell me.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #79 on: 14 Jan 2007, 15:35 »

About the rating numbers, this may sound odd but one time I was on soulseek and an employee of Pitchfork came on.  S/he was playing requests on a streaming radio thing hosted at pitchforkmedia.com, so it seemed pretty legit.  Someone mentioned the review numbers and s/he said it was a complete joke, that writers were encouraged to just chuck down whatever they feel like.  In particular, the whole decimal point business was supposed to help indicate the complete ridiculousness of the rating system...

In short, the numbers were never supposed to be useful.  It's something in the spirit of that guy from Silkworm who invented the objective rating system for music quality.
Logged

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #80 on: 15 Jan 2007, 05:35 »

Speaking of AMG, by the way, that site is by no means perfect. Its coverage of the post-industrial/martial/neo-folk axis is bizarre and entirely inadequate. For example, not only do they spell Jhonn Balance's name incorrectly (as 'John Balance'), but their write-ups of Current 93 and Coil don't even mention the fact that he's dead. They don't even HAVE a post-industrial or neo-folk sub genre (or a psych-folk one for that matter, interesting as they have other more contentious and obscure modern folk subgenres like anti-folk), which leads to ridiculousness like Sol Invictus being dumped in the same sub-genre (Industrial) as Meat Beat Manifesto (Others are all over the place: Of The Wand And The Moon are apparently 'Dark Ambient/Goth Rock'). Its sort of acceptable until you see quite how many techno and house genres they cover seperately. The depth of coverage is appaling as well: Blood Axis and Gae Bolg have only one album listed and no reviews, Ordo Rosarius Equilibrio scrape two (no reviews). Hide and Seek don't exist and Sieben are an AMG ID and the phrase 'rock'. Interested if the malaise spread further, I searched for a few more of my favourite bands. Apparently, Sopor Aeternus is Industrial, is similiar to Throbbing Gristle and Type O Negative (!!!). Ewigkeit have no write-up, are represented by only three albums, have apparently performed songs by a classical composer (?) and are a power metal band. Other metal bands seem better represented, though the biographies are often short and out of date.

All music my arse.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Chesire Cat

  • Scrabble hacker
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,363
  • Standing proudly behind unpopular opinions
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #81 on: 15 Jan 2007, 06:14 »

So we can take refuge in the fact that all musical press are woefully inadequate then?
Logged
"In this zero sum game everything given to another, reduces me"

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #82 on: 15 Jan 2007, 06:21 »

Well, all the musical press YOU'VE heard of.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #83 on: 15 Jan 2007, 08:03 »

AllMusic covers so many other artists so well and so comprehensively that their inattention to Blood Axis really doesn't make much of a difference to me. Sorry! They're still good.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

David_Dovey

  • Nearly grown up
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8,451
  • j'accuse!
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #84 on: 15 Jan 2007, 17:59 »

Everything!

Amidoinitriteguyz?
Logged
It's a roasted cocoa bean, commonly found in vaginas.

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #85 on: 15 Jan 2007, 21:07 »

About the rating numbers, this may sound odd but one time I was on soulseek and an employee of Pitchfork came on.  S/he was playing requests on a streaming radio thing hosted at pitchforkmedia.com, so it seemed pretty legit.  Someone mentioned the review numbers and s/he said it was a complete joke, that writers were encouraged to just chuck down whatever they feel like.  In particular, the whole decimal point business was supposed to help indicate the complete ridiculousness of the rating system...

In short, the numbers were never supposed to be useful.  It's something in the spirit of that guy from Silkworm who invented the objective rating system for music quality.

Yeah, I don't believe that for a second.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

fish across face

  • The German Chancellory building
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 463
  • Fugu, I won't do what you tell me.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #86 on: 16 Jan 2007, 18:31 »

Heh, yeah, Silkworm were pretty good.  Haven't heard their stuff in forever, admittedly. 

Which bit don't you believe, DynamiteKid?  Hopefully you don't believe what the pitchfork bod on soulseek said, rather than my whole account.  Why the hell would I make up such a random thing? 

I guess I do hang my self-worth on winning internet arguments and spreading misinformation, but that aside.  :wink:
Logged

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #87 on: 17 Jan 2007, 00:12 »

I don't believe the numbers they give are arbitrary, either.  Not saying your story isn't true - who cares - but I've never seen them say an album is great and give it a 7, or say it's mediocre and give it a 9.  The reviews may be bad, but they are nearly always consistent with the number given.

Perhaps the staff arbitrarily picks a number ahead of time, and then writes about the album as though that number is how good it is, without listening to it at all.  Now THAT would explain a lot.
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

KharBevNor

  • Awakened
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,456
  • broadly tolerated
    • http://mirkgard.blogspot.com/
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #88 on: 17 Jan 2007, 00:32 »

AllMusic covers so many other artists so well and so comprehensively that their inattention to Blood Axis really doesn't make much of a difference to me.

It's more like their complete innatention to the whole European post-industrial scene after 1995. Even the Current 93 article is out of date.
Logged
[22:25] Dovey: i don't get sigquoted much
[22:26] Dovey: like, maybe, 4 or 5 times that i know of?
[22:26] Dovey: and at least one of those was a blatant ploy at getting sigquoted

http://panzerdivisio

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #89 on: 17 Jan 2007, 05:18 »

Heh, yeah, Silkworm were pretty good.  Haven't heard their stuff in forever, admittedly. 

Which bit don't you believe, DynamiteKid?  Hopefully you don't believe what the pitchfork bod on soulseek said, rather than my whole account.  Why the hell would I make up such a random thing? 

I guess I do hang my self-worth on winning internet arguments and spreading misinformation, but that aside.  :wink:

Yes it's the story this person told you I don't believe.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

Storm Rider

  • Older than Moses
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,075
  • Twelve stories high, made of radiation
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #90 on: 17 Jan 2007, 05:45 »

AllMusic covers so many other artists so well and so comprehensively that their inattention to Blood Axis really doesn't make much of a difference to me. Sorry! They're still good.

One would think that their name is a bit misleading, however.
Logged
Quote
[22:06] Shane: We only had sex once
[22:06] Shane: and she was wicked just...lay there

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #91 on: 17 Jan 2007, 06:24 »

What bothers me about AllMusic is that they always give a 4+ star review to basically every single album that exists that isn't obviously total shit (ie Limp Bizkit).
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #92 on: 17 Jan 2007, 07:39 »

I submit that you are not correct, sir. Even a glance at Okkervil River's discography reveals two-and-a-half-star reviews. They do recognize excellence in a genre, but that's about it.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

TheFuriousWombat

  • GET ON THE NIGHT TRAIN
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,513
    • WXBC Bard College Radio Online
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #93 on: 17 Jan 2007, 07:41 »

if they recognize excellence in a genre, why does okkervil river have two-and-a-half star reviews?? that seems like a lack of recognition to me.
Logged
I punched all the girls in the face on the way to the booth to vote for Hitler.

Hollow Press (my blog)

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #94 on: 17 Jan 2007, 08:16 »

I was wrong. Their lowest review for Okkervil River is three stars.

I was looking for some more stuff to prove you wrong, zerodrone, but I am unfortunately limited by bands I know, all of which are very good.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Will

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,158
  • Creeeeeeeepy bear HEARTS YOU!!!
    • William James (author page)
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #95 on: 17 Jan 2007, 08:44 »

Johnny, your taste is mah-velous...impeccable even!
Logged
Quote from: JohhnyC
In grade six one of my classmates during sex ed asked if the penis could be broken. The teacher's response was "Not in the same way you'd break a bone. I still wouldn't take a hammer to it or anything."

Jackie Blue

  • BANNED
  • Born in a Nalgene bottle
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,438
  • oh hi
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #96 on: 17 Jan 2007, 08:48 »

I was looking for some more stuff to prove you wrong, zerodrone, but I am unfortunately limited by bands I know, all of which are very good.

That may be the reason I had to resort to Limp Bizkit as an example.  Every album by every band I like has a 4-5 star rating.  Even the duff albums.
Logged
Man, this thread really makes me want to suck some cock.

Johnny C

  • Mentat
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,483
  • i wanna be yr slide dog
    • I AM A WHORE FOR MY OWN MUSIC
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #97 on: 17 Jan 2007, 09:36 »

Johnny, your taste is mah-velous...impeccable even!

The fact that you concur only tells me good things about your own tastes. Remember, Johnny Knows Best.

Yeah, I went there.
Logged
[02:12] yuniorpocalypse: let's talk about girls
[02:12] Thug In Kitchen: nooo

Thrillho

  • Global Moderator
  • Awakened
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,130
  • Tall. Beets.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #98 on: 17 Jan 2007, 16:15 »

I was looking for some more stuff to prove you wrong, zerodrone, but I am unfortunately limited by bands I know, all of which are very good.

That may be the reason I had to resort to Limp Bizkit as an example.  Every album by every band I like has a 4-5 star rating.  Even the duff albums.


Yeah, I was reading through their Weezer reviews recently, and their first two albums both got about five stars, and I thought, awesome someone appreciates this band's genius. Then they also gave the third and fourth albums like four and a half stars. Oh dear.
Logged
In the end, the thing people will remember is kindness.

ImRonBurgundy?

  • Bling blang blong blung
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,233
  • "That's all," he added.
Re: Things Pitchfork Has Been Wrong About
« Reply #99 on: 17 Jan 2007, 17:17 »

And Make Believe four.

Anyway, I found this little gem on Pitchfork's website, from 2000.

Quote from: some douchebags
Asian Man Records is one of the worst companies in the world. Sure, there are some huge chemical corporations that outdo them from an ethical standpoint, but Asian Man's got more than their fair share of despicable attributes. Here's our beef: these people have been clogging our nation's already-diseased musical arteries with high-cholesterol punk for many moons, and someone needs to stop them.

Jesus, what surly sons of bitches.
« Last Edit: 18 Jan 2007, 04:14 by ImRonBurgundy? »
Logged
You just came back to shit in my heart, didn't you Ryan?
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up