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

Nate Silver developed a formula for that--you have to quantify these things.

clemenza, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:44 (six days ago) Permalink

i ignore numbering. it doesn't really matter. maybe a top ten does or whatever. pretty arbitrary otherwise.

scott seward, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:44 (six days ago) Permalink

okay this made me laugh (from the Top 25 70s videos list):

Few bands of the late ’60s and early ’70s were more melancholy than the Bee Gees, from “I Started a Joke” to “I Lay Down and Die,” “How Do You Mend a Broken Heart,” and “Don’t Wanna Live Inside Myself.” Sad!

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:50 (six days ago) Permalink

devo rules dude

― a (waterface), Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:16 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they deserve to be on the list

― a (waterface), Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:16 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

esp given p4k's core musical heritage. no Pixies without Devo imo

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:53 (six days ago) Permalink

That's the reason they get talked about though.

― Evan

not in my experience! all the arguing i've seen about this list is not about about whether "metal guru" should have been #150 AT LEAST but about what made it on the list and what didn't.

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Wednesday, 24 August 2016 19:55 (six days ago) Permalink

most regular lists don't take a whole lot of thought to put together.

― scott seward, Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:41 PM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tons of intra-staff acrimony and bitterness tho iirc

Pull your head on out your hippy haze (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 24 August 2016 20:11 (six days ago) Permalink

well, yeah, if other people are involved it could be a hassle, i guess. but a list like this one could be put together in an hour or two by one person and then that person just gets people to write about the songs. voila. which is probably how a lot of internet lists are made nowadays. doesn't have to be time-consuming.

scott seward, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 20:17 (six days ago) Permalink

which is why i tend to like more personal/obsessive lists by people who are nuts like me.

scott seward, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 20:22 (six days ago) Permalink

wait are there seriously no bee gees on the main list?

you think Lou Bega gave up after Mambo Number One??? (voodoo chili), Wednesday, 24 August 2016 20:38 (six days ago) Permalink

not in my experience! all the arguing i've seen about this list is not about about whether "metal guru" should have been #150 AT LEAST but about what made it on the list and what didn't.

― a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Wednesday, August 24, 2016 3:55 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Fair enough but I would imagine one of the most popular discussion topics in regards to this list is how things rank and whether or not Pitchfork did so correctly.

Evan, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 21:07 (six days ago) Permalink

nothing by Heart, would've figured "barracuda" as a lock.

Western® with Bacon Flavor, Wednesday, 24 August 2016 21:21 (six days ago) Permalink

these kind of conversations always remind me of when the Rolling Stone Album Guide came out in late '04 and the first I heard that it existed was when somebody (on ilx iiirc) noted there was no Metallica in the damn thing

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Wednesday, 24 August 2016 23:57 (six days ago) Permalink

or to quote amazon

1.0 out of 5 stars
By ProperGander News (Dr. Emil Shuffhausen) on August 9, 2005

Many reasonable music fans would be utterly baffled by the obtuse, eccentric, inconsistent, inaccurate, incomplete, scattershot, scatterbrained, and ultimately irrelevant nature of this Fourth Edition of the once-proud Rolling Stone brand Album Guide. How can such a fat, sprawling, ostensibly labor-intensive work be so shoddy and gap-filled?

One scarcely knows where to begin in criticizing this book. Some have mentioned the puzzling, random way in which artists are included or excluded. For example, here are a few of the classic rock/pop/soul artists that are not included at all (love 'em or hate 'em, they are significant):

Metallica
Emerson, Lake, & Palmer
George Harrison
Asia
Deep Purple
Nine Inch Nails
Dan Fogelberg
Dixie Dregs
Lionel Richie
Al Stewart
Marshall Tucker Band
Alan Parsons
Ambrosia
Gerry Rafferty
Chris Rea
Badfinger
Vangelis
The Move
Rick Wakeman
Maze featuring Frankie Beverly
Crowded House (The Finn Brothers and Split Enz also)
Tom Jones
Toto

And, if you're going to include some country artists, how can you leave out longtime major artists such as Alabama, George Strait, John Denver, Martina McBride, Andy Griggs, Toby Keith, Kenny Chesney, The Judds, Kenny Rogers, Brad Paisley, or any number of others?

Plus, albums in the Christian and Gospel genres are almost completely blackballed here, in a neat bit of exclusion, despite the fact that there are some worthy artists out there who have made groundbreaking, compelling, beautiful, rocking, daring, and moving music over the years.

Oh, but the wise editors made sure we got to read reviews on such "vital" artists as:

The Dictators
Boredoms
Aceyalone
Kid Koala
Gorky's Zygotic Mynci
Buju Banton
Marky Mark
Beanie Sigal
Spain
Green Velvet
Black Dice
Roni Size/Reprazent
Saint Etienne
Amy Rigby
Swell Maps
Pernice Brothers
The Sea and Cake
Mogwai
Shellac

Please note: the above list represents just a five-minute random thumb-through of the book, which is chock full of obscure, irrelavent "artists" who the editors feel the need to inflict upon the reader/listener. This is typical of the sneering arrogance that pervades this book like stink on a rat.

Enough of that. Let's just say the selection of artists is, at times, incredibly random.

Among an unwieldy, inconsistent, motely crew of writers in the book, perhaps the worst offender here is "reveiwer" Rob Sheffield who could not possibly be more in love with himself. He forgets that it's all about the music, not about him. His comments strain to be witty, but come off as the snotty spoutings of an immature little smart-aleck brat. He is not nearly as informed as he imagines, and if being cool were a physical attribute, then he would need a hip replacement.

Of course, Sheffield is not the only malcontent turned loose with a pen; another standout in the lowdown category is Keith Harris, who is obscene, offensive, and guilty of being the pot who calls the kettle a pot...ie, hurling accusations of blandness and lack of imagination at certain artists. And doing so in an unecessarily graphic and nasty way.

This book could have used some writing from a thoughtful, knowledgable reviewer like David Wild, but instead, what we get is mostly a bunch of juveniles--or crusty old windbags who are way past their prime and locked into some kind of mental prison (JD Considine, I'm looking at you, kid). I have seldom read a work that was more rigidly politically correct; the pandering, patronizing, drooling worship offered up to all things hip-hop, for example, is ludacris...I mean, ludicrous.

But, at the same time, there is a hateful animus against anything to do with progressive rock. The few prog bands that are actually mentioned here are, by and large, mercilessly slagged. Particularly egregious is the revisionist and pernicious caterwauling against the fantastic music of Kansas. Or parroting the phony worm-brained canard that the genius Jeff Lynne is somehow a "hamhanded" producer.

But, of course, every MC and hip hop pimp wanna-be woman hater is a genius, according to this book. How trite. Adhering to the old pat standard of attacking art and defending "trendy" rubbish is so tired and shopworn; but, it's just another facet of this book's worthlessness. Obsequious political correctness and conformity is the order of the day among these music writers.

As others have noted, the "star ratings system" in this book does not always match up with the descriptions written below them. Some four star albums are ripped and some two star albums are hailed. What gives? Didn't anybody proof this tree-slaughtering tome?

What a wasted project. With review sites such as Amazon flourishing, the need for "experts" at ROLLING STONE to tell us what is supposed to be cool is vanishing. Perhaps, if we are all lucky, RS will not see the need to get around to publishing a 5th Edition and this 4th Edition will sink into the swamp of it's own rot.

Too bad. I own earlier editions of the RS Album Guide and it used to be of some use. No more. To steal a quote from an earlier RS book, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Wednesday, 24 August 2016 23:58 (six days ago) Permalink

speaking of which, i went head to head with that loser lester bangs in rolling stone recently. to heck with that guy!

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/10-classic-albums-rolling-stone-originally-panned-w429731/black-sabbath---black-sabbath-1970-w429740

scott seward, Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:02 (five days ago) Permalink

lol at calling Sabbath "Just like Cream! But worse."

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:03 (five days ago) Permalink

nothing beats "bullshit necromancy, drug-impaired reaction time, long solos"

brimstead, Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:07 (five days ago) Permalink

most olde tyme negative reviews just make things sound awesome to me. it's the xgau effect.

scott seward, Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:08 (five days ago) Permalink

The Dictators are relatively vital.

clemenza, Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:12 (five days ago) Permalink

i'll take gorky's zygotic mynci over deep purple five days out of seven, but if i wanted to know more about gorky's zygotic mynci i don't think my first instinct would be to see what rolling stone thought of them

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:37 (five days ago) Permalink

well they got Pinkerton right.

campreverb, Thursday, 25 August 2016 03:14 (five days ago) Permalink

Fuck that guy. The Sea and Cake are awesome.

Austin, Thursday, 25 August 2016 03:50 (five days ago) Permalink

With review sites such as Amazon flourishing

veggie sticks potato snacks (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 25 August 2016 04:50 (five days ago) Permalink

Scott, that link is amazing. LMAO at Rolling Stone's pan of Are You Experienced. Who the FUCK pays attention to Jimi Hendrix's lyrics?!

Mr. Snrub, Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:34 (five days ago) Permalink

Adhering to the old pat standard of attacking art and defending "trendy" rubbish is so tired and shopworn

fresh and original observation

blafe and sand (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 25 August 2016 11:40 (five days ago) Permalink

xp to "dreaming" being disco blondie -- it's the dancing queen rip does that count

a self-reinforcing downward spiral of male-centric indie (katherine), Thursday, 25 August 2016 14:32 (five days ago) Permalink

Does anyone really, really, really like "What's Going On"? I've always felt that it's the r&b counterpart of the equally boring "Imagine". The message does all the heavy lifting, while the music is kind of a snore. Feel like it's been cruising on pure inertia for quite some time.

Darin, Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:35 (five days ago) Permalink

i'm pretty sure everybody likes it. but we need to move on now. this list is so yesterday.

scott seward, Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:38 (five days ago) Permalink

Music in Imagine is amazing. Whats Goin On also great bar a couple tracks, great sound.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:41 (five days ago) Permalink

"what's going on" would make my top 5 or top 10. it's no donnie joe emerson though

brimstead, Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:41 (five days ago) Permalink

I like "What's Going On" (more so than "Imagine," which stopped being interesting to me as soon as the subversive kick of "no religion" wore off for me) but to affirm your point, I suppose, I don't feel all that passionate about defending it.

rhymes with "blondie blast" (cryptosicko), Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:42 (five days ago) Permalink

maybe I've been de-sensitized to both songs. I dunno. I get fidgety when I hear political songs.

Darin, Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:43 (five days ago) Permalink

I get fidgety when I watch political movies, so that I get.

rhymes with "blondie blast" (cryptosicko), Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:44 (five days ago) Permalink

all songs are political

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:51 (five days ago) Permalink

my favorite political song is "hallogallo"

a confederacy of lampreys (rushomancy), Thursday, 25 August 2016 23:54 (five days ago) Permalink

'Inner City Blues' and 'Mercy Mercy Me' are the better choices from that album.

Austin, Friday, 26 August 2016 01:24 (four days ago) Permalink

yep

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 26 August 2016 01:28 (four days ago) Permalink

my favorite Gaye these days is In Our Lifetime.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 26 August 2016 01:28 (four days ago) Permalink

a really, really good record

The bald Phil Collins impersonator cash grab (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Friday, 26 August 2016 02:33 (four days ago) Permalink

distant lover's my pick for the 70's

Heez, Friday, 26 August 2016 02:38 (four days ago) Permalink

Trouble Man soundtrack and I Want You are my go-to Marvins. because i'm really dope.

scott seward, Friday, 26 August 2016 03:22 (four days ago) Permalink

I Want You is clearly the best thing he ever did.

Austin, Friday, 26 August 2016 04:03 (four days ago) Permalink

clearly

brimstead, Friday, 26 August 2016 04:13 (four days ago) Permalink

What's Going On has a very special sound, but the lyrics do have a slightly bullshitty vagueness to them. Somehow Inner City Blues doesn't bother me in the same way. However my favorite track on the record is God is Love, strangely.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, 26 August 2016 04:25 (four days ago) Permalink

No way, 'God is Love' totally rules.

The live set that's on the deluxe edition of What's Going On, generally speaking, makes a sick joke out of the studio version.

Austin, Friday, 26 August 2016 04:50 (four days ago) Permalink

This Spotify playlist is ALL dollar bin stuff!

"Songs in the key of Donnie and Joe Emerson: Music that Inspired the Fruitland Recordings"

https://open.spotify.com/user/lightintheatticrecords/playlist/3vVsfGaJQMl7OBmJajg2rg

brimstead, Friday, 26 August 2016 05:26 (four days ago) Permalink

some measure of commitment to their position as arbiter of the canon or whatever

Apart from having fun with lists and producing content for a website the key to these lists is that if they are accepted they assert the publishers "cultural capital" or smth right?

I know that's a very basic point, but surely it's the primary underlying motive behind such a list, discussing and engaging with the cannon and your position in relation to it

niels, Friday, 26 August 2016 16:19 (four days ago) Permalink

the expanded version of What's Going On with all the extra tracks/demos is pretty amazing, I love that lush but still gritty sound. Oddly I don't unreservedly love any of Gaye's albums all the way through, I still feel like I would prefer to cherrypick tracks from here and there. Maybe cuz that way I still get the full length of Got to Give It Up (his best song)

Οὖτις, Friday, 26 August 2016 20:20 (four days ago) Permalink

I know that's a very basic point, but surely it's the primary underlying motive behind such a list, discussing and engaging with the cannon and your position in relation to it

Probably. Sight & Sound and Rolling Stone want to guard it, maybe incrementally move it along, Spin in 1988 wanted to upend it--which can be embarrassing if you don't have anything interesting to offer as a replacement; their list was pretty good, though. Pitchfork, I don't know well enough to comment.

clemenza, Friday, 26 August 2016 20:25 (four days ago) Permalink

the best track on what's goin on is what's happenin' brother. "will our ballclub win the pennant? do you think they stand a chance? and tell me, friend, how in the world have you been?"

in twelve parts (lamonti), Sunday, 28 August 2016 20:19 (two days ago) Permalink


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