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 (fifteen 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 (fifteen 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 (fifteen 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 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

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

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

You scalawags, you make me laff. Perhaps.

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

We thought about that as one of the news items.

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

he's calling you out, leone. FITE!

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

Their funniest joke came months ago.

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

We thought about that as one of the news items.

Makes sense, really.

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

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

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

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

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

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

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

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

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

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

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

omg that is horrorshow

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

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

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

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

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

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

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

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

He was worked up?

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

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

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

"Rock’n’Roll Animals: Musicians Tell Us All About Their Pets"

It's weird how you can still see remnants of the old site clutching on, a Mike Powell review here, a Marc Masters review there, etc. And just utter crap rising up around it. I feel like someone else made this point earlier in the thread, but it reminds me a lot of the transition Melody Maker made before it folded.

Position Position, Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:31 (two weeks ago) Permalink

looking forward to the Top 50 Romo Albums list on Pitchfork soon, then

Neil S, Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

controversial opinion: if Melody Maker's transition had involved more articles where musicians told us about their pets, it would not have folded.

soref, Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink

but seriously, the pets article should be in the pitchfork is good thread, not the pitchfork is dumb thread. pop stars talking about their pets is always good.

soref, Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:43 (two weeks ago) Permalink

they actually reviewed an Ahmad Jamal re-issue the other day, probably a tactic to try and draw old degenerates like me in and then snare me with their upcoming Camden lurch top 100.

calzino, Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:51 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i like that pets piece but i generally like pets

ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:51 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the pets feature is great!

nxd, Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:55 (two weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.spin.com/tag/pet-sounds/

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 6 April 2017 14:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

yeah i really missed that feature!

ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Thursday, 6 April 2017 14:35 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I didn't invent the idea of musicians talking about their pets obviously (CMJ and Decibel did it before me, I think). Best one of that batch was Marnie Stern, because it's not only the cutest pet but had a harrowing tale

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 6 April 2017 14:39 (two weeks ago) Permalink

hipster puppies of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your leash

Bobson Dugnutt (ulysses), Thursday, 6 April 2017 16:48 (two weeks ago) Permalink

hipster puppies were so cute, def one of my fav internet things

blonde redheads have more fun (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 6 April 2017 17:03 (two weeks ago) Permalink

:)

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Thursday, 6 April 2017 17:06 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Chance the Rapper Had the Most Amazing Birthday Cake

Wimmels, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 11:41 (five days ago) Permalink

also, who edits this fucking thing?

It’s back-to-basics energy and prosaic storytelling make it his best solo album in years.

its not it's and prosaic is a bad thing, you idiot

Wimmels, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 11:43 (five days ago) Permalink

No it isnt

duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 12:20 (five days ago) Permalink

lmao

flapp.y, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 12:52 (five days ago) Permalink

If someone called me 'prosaic' I would absolutely assume I was being called 'basic,' and so would you. I just have no idea why someone would use that word to describe Ray Davies, who is an "everyman," sure (I guess that's what the author is trying to say?), but--like Mark E Smith or Lou Reed--is a poet first and is anything but ordinary and dull, which is what 99% of people think when they see that word

I also probably wouldn't have noticed the shitty word usage if the author knew the difference between "its" and "it's"

but let's split hairs, sure

Wimmels, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 13:09 (five days ago) Permalink

mark e smith lyrics are prosaic u dismal pedant

flopson, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 14:03 (five days ago) Permalink

Barry used the word correctly in the article, Wimmels. Your problem is with the dek which, in most cases, "the author" didn't write.

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 14:07 (five days ago) Permalink

no katherine

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 14:15 (five days ago) Permalink

This is by no means a hill I wish to die on, but there isn't a writer alive who would take being called "prosaic" a compliment, which makes the word choice in the context of this very positive review rather baffling

Wimmels, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 14:48 (five days ago) Permalink

Barry says Davies' details are prosaic, not Davies himself. And this isn't even some "I didn't call you a bitch, I said you were acting like a bitch" pedantry. Sometimes masterful songwriters sing about prosaic details and its what gives their music depth.

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 15:06 (five days ago) Permalink

Like what would a song like the Beatles' "A Day In the Life" even be without the prosaic details?

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 15:07 (five days ago) Permalink

4000 less holes

blonde redheads have more fun (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 15:38 (five days ago) Permalink

tbf those holes were rather small

Bobson Dugnutt (ulysses), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 18:41 (five days ago) Permalink

http://pitchfork.com/features/festival-report/10059-are-music-festival-lineups-getting-worse/

this is a weird article in re how it doesn't really address the question in the title and doesn't acknowledge any kind of inside perspective into festival lineups vis a vis pitchfork fest. in fact, pfork fest is barely acknowledged at all. i'm also confused by the gender breakdown chart - if there's a band with two women and two men, it seems like that should count "more" than a solo female artist, but it doesn't seem like they're counting it that way? i don't know, just a weird and not particularly useful article.

na (NA), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 19:08 (five days ago) Permalink

to turn the pedantry up a notch, let's consider this alternate reading of the sentence:

"It’s back-to-basics energy and prosaic storytelling make it his best solo album in years."

i.e. the album is back-to-basics energy; prosaic storytelling make[s] it his best... (in which case the error here would be the plural rather than singular form of "to make")

eh?

anyway, agree w/ wimmels that prosaic as a descriptor for lyrics is almost always derogatory; the word more or less means banal, pedestrian, unexceptional, even dull. "dazzling with prosaic details" is just a very misguided construction.

budo jeru, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 19:27 (five days ago) Permalink

to turn the pedantry up a notch, let's consider this alternate reading of the sentence:

"It’s back-to-basics energy and prosaic storytelling make it his best solo album in years."

Again, this sentence was probably not by the author of the review, which is who Wimmels is quibbling with

SSN Lucci (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 18 April 2017 20:29 (five days ago) Permalink

i think you're sort of missing my point, but yes i understand the author didn't necessarily write those first two lines.

anyway, the author certainly wrote this:

This is Davies in Dylan mode, hyperbolic but as dazzling with prosaic details as his student Jarvis Cocker.

i'm not saying that a lyricist has never employed the prosaic to artistic effect. i'm just saying that it would be an unusual choice of words to call that effect "dazzling," and for that reason i think the author doesn't know what the word really means. that's all.

budo jeru, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 21:54 (five days ago) Permalink

or maybe it was slang for prose mosaic

Sufjan Grafton, Tuesday, 18 April 2017 22:10 (five days ago) Permalink

regardless, we should really keep this conversation going

Bobson Dugnutt (ulysses), Wednesday, 19 April 2017 01:20 (four days ago) Permalink

lmao holy shit i was reading the story about the brainiac documentary and the hyperlink for the kickstarter campaign was this http://deadspin.com/5986076/ladies-jr-smiths-twitter-come-on-will-have-you-sopping-wet

flappy bird, Wednesday, 19 April 2017 01:40 (four days ago) Permalink

no idea why I was mentioned, I don't give a shit about "prosaic" either way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

a self-reinforcing downward spiral of male-centric indie (katherine), Wednesday, 19 April 2017 02:24 (four days ago) Permalink

not to speak for whiney but i think he was nodding to your past posts about editors sabotaging stories by tinkering with the titles

Bobson Dugnutt (ulysses), Wednesday, 19 April 2017 03:11 (four days ago) Permalink

xpost lol @ ulysses

budo jeru, Wednesday, 19 April 2017 03:54 (four days ago) Permalink

the very existence of public-facing stories is greater sabotage than any editor could possibly inflict

a self-reinforcing downward spiral of male-centric indie (katherine), Wednesday, 19 April 2017 07:32 (four days ago) Permalink

anyway, agree w/ wimmels that prosaic as a descriptor for lyrics is almost always derogatory; the word more or less means banal, pedestrian, unexceptional, even dull. "dazzling with prosaic details" is just a very misguided construction.

idk that phrase is bad maybe but there are ways to employ "prosaic" that are not derogatory--it's certainly better than saying "banal details", less clunky than "everyday details" and not as eggheaded as "quotidian details"

duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Wednesday, 19 April 2017 12:44 (four days ago) Permalink

ToddBonzalez (BradNelson), Wednesday, 19 April 2017 12:45 (four days ago) Permalink

"This is the last installment of this column in Pitchfork. Beginning in May it will appear in the Village Voice."
http://pitchfork.com/features/greil-marcus-real-life-rock-top-10/10062-what-do-you-call-father-john-misty/

end of an era

Frozen CD, Thursday, 20 April 2017 01:50 (three days ago) Permalink

Ha how many Marcus pitchfork columns were there -- three?

tylerw, Thursday, 20 April 2017 01:59 (three days ago) Permalink

i think he did it for a year

flappy bird, Thursday, 20 April 2017 02:05 (three days ago) Permalink

I take it back, he wrote a bunch and I wasn't paying attention.

tylerw, Thursday, 20 April 2017 02:08 (three days ago) Permalink

I wonder how many people sent him hate mail

a self-reinforcing downward spiral of male-centric indie (katherine), Thursday, 20 April 2017 02:11 (three days ago) Permalink

i liked his recent-ish thing about "right" being the new "like"

flappy bird, Thursday, 20 April 2017 02:13 (three days ago) Permalink

"Prosaic" is always bad, read books

albvivertine, Thursday, 20 April 2017 02:46 (three days ago) Permalink

read butts

duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Thursday, 20 April 2017 13:40 (three days ago) Permalink

two butts beating as one

Bobson Dugnutt (ulysses), Thursday, 20 April 2017 13:42 (three days ago) Permalink

ok, i think it's kinda hilarious there was this widespread mocking of justin bieber for saying in the NYT Where Are U Now video that they were "expensive sounds" and now i've seen that exact language used in both p4k's DAMN. review and its Narkopop one today

austinb, Friday, 21 April 2017 19:43 (two days ago) Permalink

honestly always liked it as a shorthand descriptor so i'm pleasantly surprised to see it popping up

austinb, Friday, 21 April 2017 19:44 (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.