O_o wtf indeed
― vergangenheitsbewaeltigung (later arpeggiator), Thursday, 12 March 2009 17:14 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah that's really weird. i wonder if it's a mistake?
― just sayin, Thursday, 12 March 2009 17:15 (fifteen years ago) link
Dumb broads can't score out of ten for shit.
― Luka ModReq (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 12 March 2009 17:21 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah, I'm sure it's a mistake
― The-Reverend (rev), Thursday, 12 March 2009 17:36 (fifteen years ago) link
don't have time to read it right now or ever but 5.7 is actually about right for that album imo
― lex pretend, Thursday, 12 March 2009 17:51 (fifteen years ago) link
It ends with the phrase "that rarest of remix albums: the kind might play start to finish, and more than once" -- I don't pretend to know Jess's process, obviously, but if he happened to feel like this was a good instance of a not-very-essential type of project, it might make sense to use a 5.7 (which should ideally mean "better than average record").
― nabisco, Thursday, 12 March 2009 18:05 (fifteen years ago) link
It reads 7.5 when I click on the link above. I guess they changed it?
― Dan S, Thursday, 12 March 2009 18:44 (fifteen years ago) link
haha alternately slight dyslexic moment
― nabisco, Thursday, 12 March 2009 18:46 (fifteen years ago) link
Ok, that makes sense...
Brief derail to ask a question about the album, for those who've heard it: is it full tracks or did Get Physical/Koze go ahead and make it a mix album, like the early press release suggested? Because the latter is clearly an awful idea, and the Pfork review makes no mention of it, which leaves me hopeful.
― Telephone thing, Thursday, 12 March 2009 19:50 (fifteen years ago) link
full trax
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Thursday, 12 March 2009 20:15 (fifteen years ago) link
From today's Red Red Meat review:
if you can picture a scrubby patch of weeds and in it a clump of gauze, possibly soiled, twitching in the breeze, and the disconnected image of decay stirs something in you, you're on your way to falling in love with Red Red Meat.
― ilxor, Monday, 30 March 2009 13:45 (fifteen years ago) link
if ya'll haven't seen it, i love the new updates on musical Twitterers.http://pitchfork.com/news/tag/Echo%20Chamber/
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 30 March 2009 13:50 (fifteen years ago) link
i kinda like that description tbh xp
― unique whips (J0rdan S.), Monday, 30 March 2009 15:04 (fifteen years ago) link
as far as pitchfork is dumb goes, this month's "puritan blister" is up there:
I’d vowed that 2009 would, at least initially, be a year of pure pop escapism, especially after how pointedly/limitingly I used music as a sort of tourniquet/palliative for 2008's psychic wounds. But just two weeks into the new year, a family friend killed himself while arguing with his fiancee. Those of us by whom he is survived are, understandably, agonizing over the subjective prescriptions we could have offered him: religiosity, Successories, credit lines, lasagna, advice, etc. But as ridiculous as it may sound, even by Puritan Blister standards, I am tortured that, as I sat beside him during Christmas dinner, or on New Year's Eve, I didn't recruit him into the cult of Kanye West's latest album, because it might have saved his life, or at least gotten him through the season.
i'm not the type to get offended by things (and this isn't an exeception) but i can imagine someone getting hilariously angry at the writer of the column after reading this. like maybe the fiancee of the guy who offed himself. "oh right, all he need was to have heard 808s and heartbreak a few more times."
http://pitchfork.com/features/puritan-blister/7587-puritan-blister-42/
― samosa gibreel, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 02:42 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, that's . . . not well thought-out.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 31 March 2009 02:45 (fifteen years ago) link
It resonates with me, actually.
― ilxor, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 02:48 (fifteen years ago) link
WOW
― elan, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 02:55 (fifteen years ago) link
ilxor is so clearly a sock
― autogucci cru (deej), Tuesday, 31 March 2009 03:01 (fifteen years ago) link
I'm sure it was written with good intentions, but using your friend's tragic story as a framing device to write about the new Kanye West album seems inappropriate (to me, at least). Especially given how serious the situation apparently was: "K---- shot himself in the head, in front of his intended, who'd been re-contacting an ex and who was threatening to leave him."
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 31 March 2009 03:03 (fifteen years ago) link
in today's Prince review written by the guy who started this thread, he refers to himself as 31 a paragraph after implying a birthdate that would make him 29
― brewer and what (some dude), Monday, 13 April 2009 14:10 (fifteen years ago) link
His rise to success, beginning with 1979's Prince, pretty much mirrored my pre-adolescent development as a music fan.
You think this implies that Jess was born in 1979? That seems like a big leap.
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Monday, 13 April 2009 15:17 (fifteen years ago) link
lol they edited it. when i read it, it said something like "Prince's first album, released only a few months after I was born..."
― europeen handball (k3vin k.), Monday, 13 April 2009 15:21 (fifteen years ago) link
That's true, though. Jess was born Feb. 21, 1978. For You was released in October 1978.
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Monday, 13 April 2009 15:27 (fifteen years ago) link
lol jaymc
― I'm crossing over into enterprise (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 13 April 2009 15:30 (fifteen years ago) link
good review btw
― Ømår Littel (Jordan), Monday, 13 April 2009 15:31 (fifteen years ago) link
^^ (xp)
they've def edited it in the past hour, though. not a big deal really tho imo, and it was a pretty good review
― europeen handball (k3vin k.), Monday, 13 April 2009 15:32 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah not a big deal at all, just wanted to clown jess in his own thread for old times sake
― brewer and what (some dude), Monday, 13 April 2009 15:36 (fifteen years ago) link
I'm sure it was written with good intentions, but using your friend's tragic story as a framing device to write about the new Kanye West album seems inappropriateYeah, and claiming that listening to a record could have saved this poor guy's life is just boneheaded and minimizes the tragedy.
― Jazzbo, Monday, 13 April 2009 15:57 (fifteen years ago) link
PB is usually my favorite read on pitchfork but the last couple have been questionable.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Monday, 13 April 2009 16:20 (fifteen years ago) link
that article is terrible
― goole, Monday, 13 April 2009 16:21 (fifteen years ago) link
How to let K----‘s death be about K----, and avoid letting it serve as an excuse to lube up the gorge of self-trivia? I mean, pop's escape has nothing to offer if one can't weather the phrase "I just died in your arms tonight"! I feel suddenly mean about an unsympathetic post-mortem review of an Elliott Smith disc that I typed for (cheap irony alert) No Depression.
― goole, Monday, 13 April 2009 16:22 (fifteen years ago) link
http://pitchfork.com/news/35087-lil-waynes-latest-amazing-mixtape-cover/
if lil wayne bootleg mixtape covers are "news" then 77 is like the new york times
http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=77&threadid=66238
― the sultan of ban (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 15 April 2009 17:53 (fifteen years ago) link
Album-covers-as-"news" is a part of EVERY successful music site tho. As pretty much the first sign that an album is ready, you instantly become one the first google hits as it nears release date. These days, music writing is all internet math, and that's true for every website, not just pfork
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 17:59 (fifteen years ago) link
even the jaded snarkballs at idolator do it
well imo "reporting" on the "release" of the decemberists' new album cover is one thing, but doing the same for a bootleg mixtape as if there aren't 495898 hilarious photoshopped mixtape covers every day is another
― the sultan of ban (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:02 (fifteen years ago) link
i kno im getting pedantic but it's not like its a "lil wayne mixtape" -- if in 10 mins i rounded up leaked cam'ron tracks and made a zip and then photoshopped his face over billy mays's body and put jim jones' face in a juicer, i wouldn't expect pfork to "report" on it
― the sultan of ban (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:04 (fifteen years ago) link
as if cam'ron was releasing a new mixtape with a hilarious cam'ron sanctioned cover
slow news day i guess \o_O/ + it is a funny cover
― the sultan of ban (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:05 (fifteen years ago) link
that cover is sick!
― hop up out the bed, turn my Drag-On (surfboard dudes get wiped out, totally), Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:06 (fifteen years ago) link
dude, yahoo and cnn fill their quotas with a stable of wacky "news," why would a music website be any different?
― Whiney G. Weingarten, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:19 (fifteen years ago) link
They could just hype up a worthless band or two and use their "output" as filler quota material and then dump them a year later when there's actually news on bands people like to report.
Just sayin'.
― mh, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:34 (fifteen years ago) link
"Do purple pontiffs leave paisley piles in the Minnesota woods?"
i miss jess being around
― elan, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 23:45 (fifteen years ago) link
no sarge you do have a point, wtf is the point in putting up a bulletin about an "amazing" garden variety mixtape cover that has nothing to do w/ the artist's official output
― brewer and what (some dude), Wednesday, 15 April 2009 23:52 (fifteen years ago) link
i know they throw 10s at reissues all the time but putting them in "best new music" is a little nutty. been thinking for a long time they should just create a special reissues section apart from the new album reviews.
― brewer and what (some dude), Thursday, 16 April 2009 13:14 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah it's not included in the BNM section though, it's just given the tag next to the review. which is a little confusing
― europeen handball (k3vin k.), Thursday, 16 April 2009 15:15 (fifteen years ago) link
btw starting threads about batshit pitchfork reviews is so 2002
― congratulations (n/a), Monday, 20 April 2009 23:28 (fifteen years ago) link
ok pitchfork is dumb: none of your old links work anymore
― the great wallogina (k3vin k.), Monday, 20 April 2009 23:34 (fifteen years ago) link
lol @ JT Ramsay
― Bianca Jagger (jaymc), Monday, 20 April 2009 23:37 (fifteen years ago) link
Let's just admit it: "JT Ramsay" was a pseudonym Jaymc wrote under
If you don't believe me, note that JT RAMSAY is an easy anagram for "SMART JAY"
― nabisco, Monday, 20 April 2009 23:39 (fifteen years ago) link
in the tradition of Pfork anagrams: I always thought Sam Ubl was a fake name because it's an anagram of "Albums."
Nice dude, tho.
― all the some dudes (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 20 April 2009 23:41 (fifteen years ago) link
JT too fwiw