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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Sean Carruthers, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

You scalawags, you make me laff. Perhaps.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Dare, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

he's calling you out, leone. FITE!

Todd Burns, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

Their funniest joke came months ago.

Nicole, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Makes sense, really.

Ned Raggett, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

powertonevolume, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

dudley, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Sarah, Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:10 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:20 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

omg that is horrorshow

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

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:18 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

Mr. Que, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

dmr, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:24 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:46 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

He was worked up?

roxymuzak, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:49 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:16 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

Can't believe I was wrong about the band who got in a horrifying bus accident that sidelined them for a year at the peak of their success

dilligaf escape plan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:27 (Yesterday) Permalink

like having that conversation at all in 2014 isn't as embarrassing as shitting your pants in school

― dilligaf escape plan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, July 29, 2014 1:11 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think talking about anything is as embarrassing as shitting your pants

sinister porpoise (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:27 (Yesterday) Permalink

dude i'm not judging your ability to gauge their commercial prospects

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:28 (Yesterday) Permalink

lol that's basically morbs calling out all the supposed apatow groupies. real talk if you like this subset of shitty retro rock bands or that subset of shitty retro rock bands it doesn't put you on the right or wrong side of history (how corny indie fuxxor is that btw), it just means you like shitty retro rock bands.

balls, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:29 (Yesterday) Permalink

Have you ever actually done it? Surprisingly chill, if done in right circumstances

sonic thedgehod (albvivertine), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:30 (Yesterday) Permalink

And somehow they've upped their jubilation game without making too many sonic changes since 2005's self-titled debut. For those listening closely, there are fewer of those gimmicky-yet-resourceful "bass bombs," wherein everyone slaps their floppiest string to thunderous effect; there's a little more Vernon Reid–style shreddage, which sounds like a happy modem warming up; and there's a slight pop-punk edge, like the Obsessed signing their '94 Columbia Records contract using Green Day's blue hair dye. Harmonicraft is business as usual for a band in the business of bliss: the good-vibration harmonies of the Beach Boys, the bad-vibration sludge of the Melvins, melodies that set the controls for the sun of the heart. It's important not because Torche have changed but because metal has changed so drastically around them.

^^from review of a band that basically sounds like Foo Fighters of metal

sinister porpoise (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:31 (Yesterday) Permalink

thread for when we have become the thing we hate

famous instagram God (waterface), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:32 (Yesterday) Permalink

oh at their best i'd say torche are downright jawbox-like

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:32 (Yesterday) Permalink

Whiney in rhetorical inconsistency shocker

Herbie Handcock (Murgatroid), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:33 (Yesterday) Permalink

jawbox owns

sinister porpoise (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:33 (Yesterday) Permalink

i'm saying! torche at their best recall a 1994 worth revisiting

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:36 (Yesterday) Permalink

B-B-B-B-BUT TEH HIPSTERS ARE LIKE THE KIDS THAT THOUGHT THEY WERE BETTER THAN ME IN HIGH SCHOOL LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT FAITH NO MORE

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:40 (Yesterday) Permalink

(i do like torche frt and also foo fighters are ok most of the time and have some jams)

sinister porpoise (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:42 (Yesterday) Permalink

lol "wrong side of history." Like your Jesus Lizard t-shirt will someday be like that time you opposed women's suffrage

Jimmywine Dyspeptic, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:50 (Yesterday) Permalink

it doesn't put you on the right or wrong side of history (how corny indie fuxxor is that btw),

this is so otm can't be said enough

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:52 (Yesterday) Permalink

i was pretty disappointed by recess after the eps. posting from dustbin of history atm

difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:54 (Yesterday) Permalink

it's sad you never saw kerensky that happy again

difficult listening hour, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:57 (Yesterday) Permalink

is that a groundbreaking brostep act

xp

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:58 (Yesterday) Permalink

ug the hipster kids that work at the deli downstairs kinda dress like that :/

sinister porpoise (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 18:59 (Yesterday) Permalink

Talking about pitchfork and EDM makes me remember this review: http://archive.today/ZUuJI#selection-561.1-565.336

Frederik B, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:02 (Yesterday) Permalink

man it would warm my heart to click on a new pitchfork review and be faced with a short-story-as-review rather than introductory links and "it has been five years since blah blah..."

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:08 (Yesterday) Permalink

Look at Pork records, a great little label from England that continues to plug away in obscurity while Moby's Play dominates the clubs and the charts. And how about Warp? It's like comparing primitive, neaderthal stone carvings to the Sistine Chapel.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:11 (Yesterday) Permalink

4 out of the 5 review descriptions on the front page refer to how many years its been since...

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:14 (Yesterday) Permalink

i mean i'm in no position to throw stones when it comes to pondering how many times the earth has circled the sun since a song dropped, but man change it up

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:16 (Yesterday) Permalink

it seems like only yesterday that ______

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:16 (Yesterday) Permalink

man it would warm my heart to click on a new pitchfork review and be faced with a short-story-as-review rather than introductory links and "it has been five years since blah blah..."

― da croupier, Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:08 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha totally

socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:31 (Yesterday) Permalink

"it's not surprising, then..."

socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:31 (Yesterday) Permalink

"'Three years after the release of their last EP, and two after an acrimonious split with original guitarist'...oh FUCK IT i'm going to pretend i'm the singer's psychologist and that we discussed his last album at our last session!"

da croupier, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:36 (Yesterday) Permalink

^^knowing how reactive p4k can be to this thread i expect to see Brent DiCrescenzo and Nick Sylvester back on staff by tomorrow

een, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:51 (Yesterday) Permalink

"Three years since the Austin-based band became Brooklyn-based"

marcos, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 19:58 (Yesterday) Permalink

nah Nick S. is on the good side of the coverage now

festival culture (Jordan), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 20:03 (Yesterday) Permalink

i heard you moved from austin to brooklyn
i heard you moved from brooklyn to austin

mattresslessness, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 20:07 (Yesterday) Permalink

any of you guys want to go see skrillex with me tonight

maura, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 20:27 (Yesterday) Permalink

Nearly thirteen months since our last meeting, Maura

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 20:28 (Yesterday) Permalink

he goes on at 9:30

maura, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 20:30 (Yesterday) Permalink

I'm seeing Bright Eyes instead

go ahead. make vid where u rap about this new TMNT movie. (forksclovetofu), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 20:43 (Yesterday) Permalink

forever whine
i'm gonna be
forever whine

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 21:30 (Yesterday) Permalink

Not only are you exactly what you promised yourself you wouldn't be (old)

Champion-level projection here.

Man, when I tell you she was cool, she was red hot, I mean she was (intheblanks), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 21:57 (Yesterday) Permalink

if only there was some way to not get old, maybe continually investing my time and energy in youth cultures will work

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:00 (Yesterday) Permalink

you post on a pop music message board

dilligaf escape plan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:04 (Yesterday) Permalink

it's a lot of kinds of music message board

sinister porpoise (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:06 (Yesterday) Permalink

really enjoying Cold Worlds, thanks pitchfork.

Van Horn Street, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:09 (Yesterday) Permalink

i don't understand how wondering why YG didn't get an arbitrary designation (that generally means something tangible to those who receive it) from a website = earnestly engaging w/ the music of the National and the Hold Steady

alpine static, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:37 (Yesterday) Permalink

the right side of that equation is a much more worthwhile use of time

een, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:40 (Yesterday) Permalink

I half-agree with you

alpine static, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:41 (Yesterday) Permalink

the sold heady

switching letters guy, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 22:42 (Yesterday) Permalink

man it would warm my heart to click on a new pitchfork review and be faced with a short-story-as-review rather than introductory links and "it has been five years since blah blah..."

― da croupier

otm, this is the sort of human endeavour of which i approve

ogmor, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 23:31 (Yesterday) Permalink

Love that Whiney was making these posts with a DEP dn

, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 23:48 (Yesterday) Permalink

Calculating Bnminity

, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 23:49 (Yesterday) Permalink


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