pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Donald
Oh my God, what just happened at P-Fork
Mon Apr 1 07:08:25 2002
63.167.209.146

I'm not going to spew any elitist bullshit, but Alanis Morrissette, Kylie Minogue? Oh my fucking God. I'll stay for a little while to see if P-Fork still serves my needs, but with today's front page, I'm not counting on it. I understand the career move, but I just don't think it's going to serve me any more.

jess, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

stu Re: Oh my God, what just happened at P-Fork Mon Apr 1 07:41:08 2002 65.92.243.96

I wonder if it's going to serve anyone's needs. I don't think a web- only publication can attract readers interested in Alanis Morissette and Kylie Minogue. To my knowledge, no one actually hunts down information about such artists. People just hear about it on tv and that's it. Let's give Pitchfork a few months, until the corporate contributors pull the plug.

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I am very disappointed. Could they have made it any more obvious? COME ON, PEOPLE.

David Raposa, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't think a web- only publication can attract readers interested in Alanis Morissette and Kylie Minogue.

QUOTE OF THE YEAR.

jess, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

What makes me think that things will be back to normal by tomorrow? ;)

Sean Carruthers, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know Sean... it would be April 2nd, which would make it one day after...

Andy K, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

You scalawags, you make me laff. Perhaps.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Speaking of which, HEY NED! My Bloody Valentine are finally releasing their new album!

Sean Carruthers, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Dare, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"i for one will not be returning to this site if you're seriously going to be reviewing alanis. like i can't read that shit everywhere and anywhere? the reason i had pitchfork as my home page was because i could actually find out about the shit i care about. i'm glad you can pay your rent now, it's too bad that you sold out your millions of readers for britney fans in body glitter to do it."

Dare, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

pitchfork as your homepage, classic or dud?

the first thing i thought (after, well, this is no all cure all the time) was that i wished they really had "sold out" (what the fuck, is this 93?), because maybe it would mean LESS GODDAMN PROG.

jess, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

he's calling you out, leone. FITE!

Todd Burns, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I think I'd rather read about Alanis and Kylie than most of the stuff they normally review.

Sean, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Their funniest joke came months ago.

Nicole, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know what all you fools are talking about... I only WISH all of it were true.

Well, the Albini thing practically is...

mr. sparkle, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Makes sense, really.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know what all you fools are talking about... I only WISH all of it were true.

Well, the Albini thing practically is... huh???

Brock K., Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

LESS GODDAMN PROG

So, does that mean we'll write about the next Radiohead album, or not?

dleone, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

And that Flaming Lips thing actually is true. I think.

powertonevolume, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Hein? Is the joke that Pitchfork reviewed some pop musik?? Even their KYLIE review was as dull as www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustain/default.htm ARRRGHHHHHHHHH!! Then again Pitchfork = dull is a big shocker along the lines of Nelson in COLUMN!!!!!! shocker.

Sarah, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

'On' column? 'HAS' column?! I can see him from my bladdy window but does that help my BRANE I think NICHT.

Sarah, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Dom, how much of the Kylie review was farce? "The song exudes a catchiness that belies its inherent simplicity, so reassuring during an era when chart acts sound increasingly baroque and producers race to see who can ape electronic music trends first" sounds at least semi-serious.

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

that is because kylie is, like sophie ellis bextor, going for a retro- mancuso/levan vibe, with all the classicism inherent in such an endeavour.

gareth, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Actually, I did try to write about that record in the same way I would have for anything else at Pitchfork. I thought the gag would be better if people really thought we were changing styles, and Spin may be full of ads, but at least the reviews aren't jokes! As far as I know, anyway. Dullness wasn't intentional though.

dleone, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

dudley, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Dead right sir. Power shandies all round to the geezer behind it eh?

Sarah, Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

From: DWilliams@EQRWORLD.com Subject: NO, Just Admit You Like It Up There

You have completed your learning of life's lessons. Now, you suck ass just like all the other bores before you. Kylie, Alanis? Whatever, bitch. I am sure you already have the defense mechanisms in place so, this will mean nothing but, another exercise in...oh, who cares. Looking elsewhere for reality...or maybe I can pretend to be a rubber worm like pitchwhore.com...here big fishie, look, I rounded 'em up for you in a arrel. A whole demographic!

Not Funny

Dare, Thursday, 4 April 2002 00:00 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

five years pass...

Y'know sometimes they really are asking for it:

"White Williams issues a debut album layered with impeccable influences-- including Roxy Music, Beck, and T. Rex-- and a sense of calculated disaffection."

Well shit SIGN ME UP.

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 18:57 (eight years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that was a bit of a repellant blurb if I ever saw one.

Z S, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:01 (eight years ago) Permalink

Wait, are you saying that doesn't seem accurate?

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:10 (eight years ago) Permalink

I read 'White' as 'While' and thought "The Saul Williams album sounds like that?"

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:11 (eight years ago) Permalink

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:20 (eight years ago) Permalink

The front blurbs are always stripped/condensed summary descriptions from the review inside -- in this case

His songs are thin and languorous, with impeccable influences and the sort of calculated disaffection that comes from an MFA in design and a good weed connection.

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

omg that is horrorshow

The blurb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the article quote

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:18 (eight years ago) Permalink

I assume that's an article quote; nabisco, if you just made that up then SHAME ON YOU.

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:22 (eight years ago) Permalink

why would a critic ever try to guess where a song comes from?

Mr. Que, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:23 (eight years ago) Permalink

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

dmr, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

Wait, are you saying that doesn't seem accurate?

The description of "a sense of calculated disaffection", a combination of words that makes me imagine the shittiest band of all time, followed by "recommended" was repellant for me. I guess I like my disaffection to be natural, not carefully planned, so I would never recommend something like that.

Then again, I've never heard it so what do I know and so on.

Z S, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:29 (eight years ago) Permalink

b-but someone at pfork said "hm, how can we get people to read this review? I know! we'll mention the artist's impeccable influences and calculated disaffection! that'll reel 'em in!"

RIP satire etc

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:34 (eight years ago) Permalink

they could have collaged+mis-used _anything_ from the article, and they collaged+mis-used that

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:35 (eight years ago) Permalink

The White Williams album reminds me much more of late 10cc and Bread than of Roxy Music. That bit was like the classic "Let's over-hip our influences" review.

I eat cannibals, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:54 (eight years ago) Permalink

The description of "a sense of calculated disaffection", a combination of words that makes me imagine the shittiest band of all time, followed by "recommended" was repellant for me.

See, this sounds like the blurb WORKED for you -- i.e., efficiently let you know you would probably not like this act.

I agree, though, it looks kind of weird to have such a neutral-to-disparaging summary blurb on a recommended album.

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 22:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

I like how they gave the new Babyshambles, which is actually tuneful and a good all around album, a 4.0, but gave the first one, which is dreadful and hard to listen to / bloated, a 7.3,

Yeah, it was definitely TWICE as good as the new one. Fuckin' morons.

Erock Zombie, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:30 (eight years ago) Permalink

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:46 (eight years ago) Permalink

(xpost) was that a parody or are you really getting worked up about an internet score for babyshambles

dmr, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:47 (eight years ago) Permalink

He was worked up?

roxymuzak, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:49 (eight years ago) Permalink

wait, i thought the grading scale was logarithmic. like 5 is twice as good as 4. somebody email ryan schreiber to find out.

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

shit, now i need to reevaluate all my purchases of the last five years.

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:16 (eight years ago) Permalink

It's actually modelled after the Richter Scale, hence the superlative designations of various well-reviewed albums as either "Reccomended," "Best New Music," or "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On."

Alex in Baltimore, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:24 (eight years ago) Permalink

lol what
Yeah, I tried typing a response to that last night but my eyes kept rolling back in my skull.

i was surprised when i saw him live! dunno what to tell you!

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Thursday, 22 September 2016 00:05 (six days ago) Permalink

does anyone read the wire anymore btw

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:18 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they do if they're in it that month

― Dominique, Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:20 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

heyooooooo

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:21 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ouch

Crazy Eddie & Jesus the Kid (Raymond Cummings), Thursday, 22 September 2016 02:02 (six days ago) Permalink

I read it every month, but I write for it, so.

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, 22 September 2016 02:05 (six days ago) Permalink

At this point, I skim it in the bookstores, but feel guilty about that. Used to buy it almost monthly, but can't justify doing so given that I have subscriptions to several magazines that I never get around to finishing.

Crazy Eddie & Jesus the Kid (Raymond Cummings), Thursday, 22 September 2016 02:10 (six days ago) Permalink

if the stuff that eg Phillip Sherburne and Andy Beta are reviewing is trendy then I must be particularly out of the loop these days

anyway it comes back to the actual writing - they might not award a BNM or even a top-of-page review to experimental stuff but if I read it and I think "hey this sounds like its for me and that 7.7 or whatever suggests it isn't awful then maybe I'll give it some time of my own and see if I form a better opinion of it"

boxedjoy, Thursday, 22 September 2016 07:27 (six days ago) Permalink

I stopped my Wire subscription last year (for mainly financial reasons) and I feel a weird kind of guilt about it but not sure how much I actually miss it.

Sunn O))) Brother Where Art Thou? (Chinaski), Thursday, 22 September 2016 08:23 (six days ago) Permalink

lol what
Yeah, I tried typing a response to that last night but my eyes kept rolling back in my skull.

i was surprised when i saw him live! dunno what to tell you!
― thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Wednesday, September 21, 2016 7:05 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I saw him live too and unless you're in some kind of Wynton Marsalis bop utopia where fusion and the whole 70s and 80s never happened....I dunt know how you can call it not jazz that's just lj level ludicrous

Pull your head on out your hippy haze (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 22 September 2016 12:18 (six days ago) Permalink

does anyone read the wire anymore btw

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:18 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they do if they're in it that month

― Dominique, Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:20 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

heyooooooo

― jason waterfalls (gbx), Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:21 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ouch

proud + ashamed to say this applies to me!

sam jax sax jam (Jordan), Thursday, 22 September 2016 12:55 (six days ago) Permalink

What's your point? I hide pictures of myself with my phone number in all sorts of magazines.

Evan, Thursday, 22 September 2016 13:58 (six days ago) Permalink

I dunt know how you can call it not jazz that's just lj level ludicrous

again, I'm not accusing Kamasi of NOT MAKING JAZZ oh horrors; I'm saying his live show (and the crowd that attended) looked and sounded "more jam band with funk elements than jazz". I don't pretend to be the most seasoned of jazz (or jam) listeners but I've seen my fair share of both, I like fusion and post bop as much as the next guy, I am not a purist when it comes to labels. I just call a duck a duck when it quacks; the "ymmv" note there was plenty intentional to suggest not everyone's gonna agree.

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Thursday, 22 September 2016 16:38 (six days ago) Permalink

Whiney G. Weingarten, Thursday, 22 September 2016 17:03 (six days ago) Permalink

Funky duck

niels, Thursday, 22 September 2016 17:13 (six days ago) Permalink

It's spiritual hat jazz

Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Thursday, 22 September 2016 17:29 (six days ago) Permalink

always good to judge a band by its audience

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 September 2016 17:31 (six days ago) Permalink

(deej otm tho)

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 September 2016 17:31 (six days ago) Permalink

I guess fusion jazz or whatever got pretty far from what noobs (like me) think of as /jazz/, especially live the drums were so beefy and playing like, banging hip hop beats; The other concert that Kamasi live most reminded me of was The Roots

flopson, Thursday, 22 September 2016 17:58 (six days ago) Permalink

everyone plays beats in jazz these days, we've had so many generations raised on beats that it feels like the natural and honest approach for young jazz musicians, whereas making the choice to swing feels very particular and antiquated.

i agree that this can feel jam band-y at times. a lot of bands are good at avoiding jam band pitfalls, but it's tricky.

sam jax sax jam (Jordan), Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:13 (six days ago) Permalink

banging hip hop beats

but... so many banging hip hop beats are/were sampled from jazz records

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:14 (six days ago) Permalink

those rhythms have been key elements of jazz since the late 60s, when swing rhythms stopped being so omnipresent

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:15 (six days ago) Permalink

kinda feel like we should have a dedicated spiritual hat jazz thread tbh

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:16 (six days ago) Permalink

right but i think it's changed even in the last 10-15 years. like when i was trying to play jazz in college it felt like we were getting away with something by playing beats, or it was ok to do that once or twice a set to change up the feel, like the obligatory latin jazz tune. and now you're just as likely to see shows where the ratio has flipped, or that's how it seems to me anyway.

sam jax sax jam (Jordan), Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:24 (six days ago) Permalink

A lot of funk samples too :P

As open a genre as jazz is, I think it might have room for some works being categorized both funk/soul AND jazz

niels, Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:26 (six days ago) Permalink

interesting observation, I've thought more than once in that same period that the standard jazz swing beat is just a thing that's almost completely vanished from modern musical vocabulary. It was everywhere for decades, and now it's just kinda gone.

xp

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 September 2016 18:28 (six days ago) Permalink

the soloing on the kamasi record... it's completely jazz style soloing, melodically, rhythmically...

brimstead, Thursday, 22 September 2016 19:16 (six days ago) Permalink

i agree! live it was notably different.

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Thursday, 22 September 2016 19:18 (six days ago) Permalink

Whiney G. Weingarten, Thursday, 22 September 2016 19:40 (six days ago) Permalink

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Thursday, 22 September 2016 19:50 (six days ago) Permalink

scott seward, Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:12 (six days ago) Permalink

wikki wikki.........

scott seward, Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:12 (six days ago) Permalink

Kamasi is in the latest Marc Maron podcast, which is a, ah, thing (Ben Ratliff also puts in an appearance).

Sunn O))) Brother Where Art Thou? (Chinaski), Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:41 (six days ago) Permalink

Yeah, I listened to it today. I'm not the biggest Maron fan, but it was an interesting conversation. (A lot more interesting than the Ratliff segment.)

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:45 (six days ago) Permalink

I've got it lined up for a bedtime listen. Intrigued.

Sunn O))) Brother Where Art Thou? (Chinaski), Thursday, 22 September 2016 20:46 (six days ago) Permalink

lmao @ that Jizz Addicts shirt

alpine static, Thursday, 22 September 2016 23:24 (six days ago) Permalink

Forks the Kamasi Washington jazz truther...why won't Kamasi Washington show us his jazz certificate? The people deserve to know!

Pull your head on out your hippy haze (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 23 September 2016 00:30 (five days ago) Permalink

I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Friday, 23 September 2016 22:35 (five days ago) Permalink

idk who Pfork's target audience is anymore but it sure isn't me, I check it once or twice a week now

Οὖτις, Friday, 23 September 2016 22:37 (five days ago) Permalink

omg i have this video idea that is, like, totally random

I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Friday, 23 September 2016 22:43 (five days ago) Permalink

I smell a Pulitzer

Wimmels, Friday, 23 September 2016 23:07 (five days ago) Permalink

idk who Pfork's target audience is anymore but it sure isn't me, I check it once or twice a week now

― Οὖτις, Friday, September 23, 2016 11:37 PM (three days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

probably once every two weeks for me which is a big shift. redesign did it for me tho.

in twelve parts (lamonti), Monday, 26 September 2016 17:20 (two days ago) Permalink

LOL--this is news?

http://pitchfork.com/news/68561-rick-rubin-attends-first-presidential-debate/

a (waterface), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 13:20 (yesterday) Permalink

Ever since the redesign (could be coincidence) they've been posting these weird stories occasionally that only exist because they involve, in whatever abstract way, someone with a connection to the music business but don't have much else to do with the actual music or the business.

Evan, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 13:30 (yesterday) Permalink

They were dying for a way to put "Presidential Debate" into a headline in this case obviously

Evan, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 13:35 (yesterday) Permalink

Good to see them covering every streaming platform that Blonde is available on.

MarkoP, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 16:16 (yesterday) Permalink

Especially considering his newfound penchant for breezy, non-confrontational pop music, in 2016, it’s hard to imagine Banhart being at the forefront of anything

bon iver to thread

Wimmels, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:07 (yesterday) Permalink

the way they phrased it made me think it was about rick rubin attending his first presidential debate and i was like, well congrats look who's a big boy

nomar, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:15 (yesterday) Permalink

it is about rick rubin attending his first presidential debate

a (waterface), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:20 (yesterday) Permalink

wow that's so cool he must have been so excited

nomar, Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:37 (yesterday) Permalink

he's a big boy

a (waterface), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 18:38 (yesterday) Permalink

gave him a break from sitting crosslegged on a couch telling anthony kiedis he "really likes the energy" of that vocal take

Pull your head on out your hippy haze (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 27 September 2016 19:05 (yesterday) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.