Pitchfork Observed

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (283 of them)

Yeah yeah, I know -- I'm just finding it funny that I can't even think of what the mean stereotypes or criticisms of Chicago would be! Maybe that's the only criticism: boring / lack of personality to even make fun of?

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:35 (nineteen years ago) link

pitchforkmedia is OK, but i prefer fisting my grandmother. much more informative.

― rectal jones, Wednesday, 1 December 2004 16:07 (nineteen years ago) link

Another corny indie review of a (likely non-single) track from the forthcoming M83. Death again to Pitchfork.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:40 (nineteen years ago) link

Just for you, Spencer, my next review back for them is going to say wonderful things about LA.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:59 (nineteen years ago) link

Haha, actually if I read good things about L.A. in Pitchfork, then I'd move.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:00 (nineteen years ago) link

If William Bowers wrote a review about how cool you are, would you have to kill yourself?

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:06 (nineteen years ago) link

I think Pitchfork has great taste but their reviews are way too long. That's were a site like MusicEmissions.com (http://www.musicemissions.com) is better. They are analytical and yet get their point across in under 400 words. I know I am biased here and I do check out Pitchfork on a daily basis but I really can't remember the last time I read an entire review. I don't have the time.

― Dennis Scanland, Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:05 (nineteen years ago) link

Haha, Nitsuh, thanks for the shout-out.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:38 (nineteen years ago) link

but I really can't remember the last time I read an entire review. I don't have the time.

Yeah, who has time to read these days? In fact, I think Pitchfork would be even better if they just dispensed with the review altogether and just slapped on the score and were done with it.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:02 (nineteen years ago) link

If William Bowers wrote a review about how cool you are, would you have to kill yourself?

I would definitely have to seek help if I read "Spencer Chow is the next Radiohead" in Pitchfork.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:28 (nineteen years ago) link

"Spencer Chow is the next Ned Raggett"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:48 (nineteen years ago) link

i like the fact that pitchfork runs long reviews. quite a lot of them are obviously padded out, and demand better editing, but that's the fault of the writers, not the format, which offers the potential, sometimes met, for interesting writing.

― stevie (stevie), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 23:52 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, who has time to read these days? In fact, I think Pitchfork would be even better if they just dispensed with the review altogether and just slapped on the score and were done with it.

haha, lol...

I generally like Pitchfork, but two things in particular increasingly annoy me:
a) the ratings system - come on, those decimals are just plain silly
b) their propensity for slating albums only for the lyrics; this isn't a book club, is it? The already (in)famous Travis Morrison review did not devote a single syllable to the music - can lyrics alone be so crap as to warrant a 0.0 rating? I think not.

― Robbert (Robbert), Thursday, 2 December 2004 20:07 (nineteen years ago) link

Just for you, Spencer, my next review back for them is going to say wonderful things about LA.

Nabisco, I'm guessing you mean the one AFTER this Slowdive thing?

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 2 December 2004 20:13 (nineteen years ago) link

Or is the review actually an acrostic?!

― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 2 December 2004 20:17 (nineteen years ago) link

The next one! Which will be about a band with only one very minor collection to L.A., so look out.

― nabiscothingy, Thursday, 2 December 2004 21:07 (nineteen years ago) link

It's hard to believe that a kid growing up in New York needs music to save him/her

Believe it. It happened to me!

(/dramatic)

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Thursday, 2 December 2004 21:09 (nineteen years ago) link

the ratings system - come on, those decimals are just plain silly

The decimal points are the best part of the rating system. Single digits are for wimps. There's a major difference between, say, a 7.4 and a 7.6. Everything between 1.0 and 3.5 is kind of a blur though.

The already (in)famous Travis Morrison review did not devote a single syllable to the music

Not true.

― savetherobot, Friday, 3 December 2004 03:29 (nineteen years ago) link

single digits are for Stylus, not wimps.

― djdee2005 (djdee2005), Friday, 3 December 2004 04:32 (nineteen years ago) link

ten months pass...

PFM built my entire music library. I buy what they recommend because they not only get it right most of the time, they get it right with all the geekery my dark soul can take...

― ubaka, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 00:41 (eighteen years ago) link

have you seen my blog? i think you'd like it.

― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:02 (eighteen years ago) link

if you were a real geek, you wouldn't need a website to tell you what to listen to, you lazy fuck.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:03 (eighteen years ago) link

if you were a real geek, you wouldn't need a website to tell you what to listen to, you lazy fuck.

geek!= punk

― Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:10 (eighteen years ago) link

you misunderstand. please read this:

people who ONLY use pitchfork to learn of new music

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:12 (eighteen years ago) link

so this is the roomate of whom you spoke?

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:41 (eighteen years ago) link

no, i don't know who this loser is.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:56 (eighteen years ago) link

cutty otm

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 01:58 (eighteen years ago) link

MUSIC FOUND AFTER EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION SOUNDS BETTER

RECOMMENDATIONS BY OTHERS MAKE MUSIC SOUND WORSE

― HOW EDGY? SO EDGY, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 02:37 (eighteen years ago) link

LAZY MUSIC COLLECTOR BLINDLY ACCEPTS MUSIC SUGGESTIONS BASED ON NUMERICAL SCALE

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:05 (eighteen years ago) link

Thank you, cutty, for showing us who the real geek is.

― nancyboy (nancyboy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:16 (eighteen years ago) link

fuck off scott, why did you start posting here again?

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:23 (eighteen years ago) link

New thread suggestion:

Pitchfork Bashers: Classic or Dud?

― nancyboy (nancyboy), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:23 (eighteen years ago) link

i hate pitchfork bashers too.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 03:25 (eighteen years ago) link

MUSIC APPRECIATION IS HARD WORK

RESEARCH IS THE KEY

YOU WILL REACH OTHER, MORE ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSIONS

TRUST ME: I'VE DONE MY HOMEWORK

― SO-CALLED MUSIC JOURNALISM, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 05:13 (eighteen years ago) link

pfm is good but blind faith is dud

― gear (gear), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 05:15 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.nrk.no/img/466283.jpeg

― login name (fandango), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 05:49 (eighteen years ago) link

Pitchfork's relaunch early next year

Was this the much-trumpeted redesign that barely changed anything except to make it UNUSABLE on dial-up?

My only beef with Pitchfork really is how the Pitchforkiness seems to run so deep through the site, that with some reviews it turns a lot of (potentially) good writing bad-to-unreadable.

Most of the individual staffers and correspondents are okay-to-great, some even recognise the Pitchforkiness and manage to negotiate it well, whilst implicitly acknowledging it's stupidity.

I can pretty much deal with it's taste bias, annoying as it can sometimes be. Most sites have one.

― login name (fandango), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 08:11 (eighteen years ago) link

I try to work the word "creamy" at least once into all my stories.

― Mofrackie, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 12:45 (eighteen years ago) link

thank you cutty BECAUSE YOU WILL DIE ONE DAY AND I WILL BE HAPPY ABOUT IT

― ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 12:51 (eighteen years ago) link

oh yeah and here is the internet law

pitchfork: annie and RADIOHEAD
stylus: girls aloud and ELO

― ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 12:52 (eighteen years ago) link

Whoa - Brent D's investigation-of-Devendra-Banhart-and-stuff (with much talk of pedophilia) totally vanished from the site today. Huh.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:15 (eighteen years ago) link

"investigation"

― Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:17 (eighteen years ago) link

Or, um, it just got moved down one slot, Sean?

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:22 (eighteen years ago) link

well, maybe. try clicking on it.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:23 (eighteen years ago) link

I get it just fine. Maybe you need to refine yr clicking technique.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:27 (eighteen years ago) link

it was gone for a second, but that seems like an archival error. xpost

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:30 (eighteen years ago) link

haha! okay! the paranoiac in me was doubletaking.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:30 (eighteen years ago) link

my bad: wrong link was there, fixed now.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Tuesday, 1 November 2005 15:34 (eighteen years ago) link

one month passes...

Scenesters think modern lovers is slang for that Yeah Yeah Yeahs' "Modern Romance" song

― scenester, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 16:39 (eighteen years ago) link

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