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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

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

Sean Carruthers, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

You scalawags, you make me laff. Perhaps.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Dare, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

he's calling you out, leone. FITE!

Todd Burns, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

Their funniest joke came months ago.

Nicole, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Makes sense, really.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

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

powertonevolume, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

dudley, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (14 years ago) Permalink

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

Sarah, Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:00 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

5 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 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

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

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:10 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:20 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

omg that is horrorshow

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

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:18 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

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

Mr. Que, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:23 (8 years ago) Permalink

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

dmr, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:24 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:46 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

He was worked up?

roxymuzak, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:49 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

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

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:16 (8 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 (8 years ago) Permalink

me too

marcos, Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:46 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

did u guys read my pj harvey story though #RollingStoneforaginghipsters

tylerw, Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:47 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I read stuff you link via twitter but I just can't look at that site

Οὖτις, Thursday, 14 April 2016 16:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i will always read ilxors on pitchfork if they link it on the facebook. but that's all i read on there.

scott seward, Thursday, 14 April 2016 17:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i actually think the pitch section has really improved lately -- less hot take-y stuff and more interesting niche pieces.

tylerw, Thursday, 14 April 2016 17:21 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

it has (including your stuff!), but unfortunately it coincided with the time that the section got demoted to a tag

Karl Malone, Thursday, 14 April 2016 17:28 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

more of a promotion tbh

de l'asshole (flopson), Thursday, 14 April 2016 17:33 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah i don't know, it seems more buried now? but it also just looks the same as the rest of the site ... guessing that most readers don't really care what section a thing is in

tylerw, Thursday, 14 April 2016 17:49 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i mean, everything is kind of buried now. but at least they appear as news items when fresh

de l'asshole (flopson), Thursday, 14 April 2016 17:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

they should bring peter sotos back to pitchfork. his critical voice has been sorely missed.

http://pitchfork.com/features/show-no-mercy/6398-show-no-mercy/

scott seward, Thursday, 14 April 2016 18:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah i don't know, it seems more buried now? but it also just looks the same as the rest of the site ... guessing that most readers don't really care what section a thing is in

― tylerw, Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:49 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

everyone gets their articles through twitter and facebook

Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Thursday, 14 April 2016 21:25 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

lol i kind of wish people shared p4k articles on my FB, no one talks about music in my feed, it is all bernie bros and bad memes

marcos, Thursday, 14 April 2016 21:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

A lot of the people I'm connected to on Facebook actually work for record labels, so I see more links to Billboard than to Pitchfork.

the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, 14 April 2016 23:13 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

My FB is about 99% articles about which poets are white supremacists and/or rapists

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Friday, 15 April 2016 01:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

FB feed, that is

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Friday, 15 April 2016 01:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

"bernie bros" is a thing?

Wimmels, Friday, 15 April 2016 01:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i saw the link to ilx in the xiu xiu twin peaks review classy

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 15 April 2016 01:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Now, having long ago donated the majority of the Kickstarter proceeds to a Malian NGO, Dibb has finally emerged with a mostly self-financed, small-scale album that was quietly released this month in a special cassette/book edition for donors (and on Bandcamp for everyone else). But despite all the Kickstarter confusion and communication breakdowns, none of Dibb’s out-of-pocket supporters should feel short-changed. Because whatever anxiety Dibb felt about not following through on his Kickstarter campaign has been channeled into a wonderful little album about overcoming the anxiety of not following through on your Kickstarter campaign. Okay, so Sleep Cycle doesn’t include any lyrics that specifically reference inflated funding targets and comment-section outrage, but this exercise in self-help psychedelia provides a poignant portrait of an artist regaining their confidence one song at a time.

Whiney G. Weingarten, Monday, 18 April 2016 16:59 (1 week ago) Permalink

aw i love this http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1083-lisa-simpsons-second-grade-blues/

flappy bird, Monday, 18 April 2016 17:02 (1 week ago) Permalink

Pfft. "Lisa's Sax" was a Season 9 episode, not a Season 3 episode!
I hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

MarkoP, Monday, 18 April 2016 17:10 (1 week ago) Permalink

Only four album reviews up today instead of the usual five.

Position Position, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:27 (1 week ago) Permalink

Maybe there are no other new albums?

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

Sturgill is so good it counts as two albums

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

4 reviews fits their layout better

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:32 (1 week ago) Permalink

on mobile

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:33 (1 week ago) Permalink

"Animal Collective’s most mysterious member."

clog dabussy (fgti), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 14:04 (1 week ago) Permalink

sneaky deaky

Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 14:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

And this is why there are only four reviews:
http://pitchfork.com/news/64915-pitchfork-to-publish-album-reviews-on-saturdays/

MarkoP, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

also genre tags are back for album reviews

marcos, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:45 (1 week ago) Permalink

though maybe this has been the case for a while? maybe i missed it

marcos, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

I kind of like this change.

Austin, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

do you any of you remember when they used to do that? there would be microgenres too like i remember "glitch" being there

marcos, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

2016 marks the 20th anniversary of the Squirrel Nut Zippers most celebrated and commercially successful album Hot. Originally released in the summer of 1996, Hot was the follow up to the band’s critically acclaimed debut The Inevitable. By this time the group had already established a substantial live following across the country thanks to early support from NPR, college radio and non-commercial stations. Hot wound up selling over 1.3 million copies.

Pitchfork, which was in it’s second year of operation at the time, raved about Hot giving it a 9.5 and saying: “When you first splashdown into the CD, ya hit this realization: that people even older than your parents liked music like this. …Hot is exuberant, gin house swing without apologies and it rocks without pretense. If you can manage to resist liking it, you must be dead.”

ulysses, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:38 (3 days ago) Permalink

my two year old says a lot of dumb stuff

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:40 (3 days ago) Permalink

ya hit this realization

ulysses, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:42 (3 days ago) Permalink

ya just hit that realization?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:42 (3 days ago) Permalink

Father John Misty Tells Two Stories About Beyoncé Collaboration: One Real, One Fake

what a coincidence, i don't give two shits about this: one real, one fake

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 26 April 2016 22:26 (3 days ago) Permalink

Ha ha ha. Yeah, pfork's embrace of this clown is consistently shocking to me, even when taking into account how terrible nu-pfork is

Wimmels, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 22:46 (3 days ago) Permalink

Holy shit

Pitchfork to Review Key Albums in the Prince Catalog

This is like what the 35th Prince related headline so far in the past week?

Evan, Thursday, 28 April 2016 19:39 (Yesterday) Permalink

they needed a headline to let people know what old albums they're planning on reviewing

billstevejim, Thursday, 28 April 2016 19:42 (Yesterday) Permalink

Pitchfork to Announce that Pitchfork to Review Key Albums in the Prince Catalog

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 28 April 2016 19:55 (Yesterday) Permalink

I wonder if they'll give Purple Rain a 10?

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:12 (Yesterday) Permalink

it is kind of corny how they do this isn't it

marcos, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:25 (Yesterday) Permalink

would be funnier/more interesting if they just reviewed the albums nobody knows/remembers - The Gold Experience, Come, Rainbow Children, Rave un2 the Joy Fantastic, Musicology etc.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:29 (Yesterday) Permalink

There's an article for every single Prince cover this week as well.

Evan, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:50 (Yesterday) Permalink

Pitchfork publishes four new Prince reviews, links beneath this headline

I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Friday, 29 April 2016 15:30 (4 hours ago) Permalink

Did p4k review them in the voice of an 80s hipster: "Hey turn down Miami Vice and pass me an album cover I can snort this nose candy off. Whoa, who is cat?"

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Friday, 29 April 2016 15:39 (4 hours ago) Permalink

This

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Friday, 29 April 2016 15:39 (4 hours ago) Permalink

Cat is someone we need to rap iirc

Οὖτις, Friday, 29 April 2016 15:45 (4 hours ago) Permalink

Shit, cat. It don’t make a difference.

mandatory sex webinar (contenderizer), Friday, 29 April 2016 16:01 (3 hours ago) Permalink


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