pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (7600 of them)
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

"White Williams issues a debut album layered with impeccable influences-- including Roxy Music, Beck, and T. Rex-- and a sense of calculated disaffection."

if anything, that reads like a good reason not to check out the album....

stephen, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:28 (8 years ago) Permalink

richter scale is logarithmic xpost

but kudos nonetheless

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:42 (8 years ago) Permalink

yeah sorry the "actually" sounded like I was disagreeing when it more of an "yeah and" thing

Alex in Baltimore, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:43 (8 years ago) Permalink

No band has marked indie's prog revival more definitively than Battles: Their debut, Mirrored, took rock for a set of puzzle pieces, but was ultimately defined by its pictorial sensibility-- each song felt like a cartoon soundtrack-- and the incorporation of jokes into the most historically humorless music in the known world.

latebloomer, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:43 (8 years ago) Permalink

wtf, wtf -- wtf? -- wtf!

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:45 (8 years ago) Permalink

the incorporation of JOKES

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (8 years ago) Permalink

ya i saw that too... pretty lazy writing

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (8 years ago) Permalink

How can you get paid to write if you don't know what "but" means?

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:51 (8 years ago) Permalink

jokes?!?!? has dude ever read the back of a don cab/a minor forest/whoever cd?

YGS, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:53 (8 years ago) Permalink

That bothers me more in a semantic sense: I think the album has a sense of humor, sure, but I don't know what "jokes" refers to in a largely instrumental piece of work.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

joeks, bruv

Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

You can here an interpolation of classic knock-knock jokes in "Atlas".

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:06 (8 years ago) Permalink

<i>jokes?!?!? has dude ever read the back of a don cab/a minor forest/whoever cd?

-- YGS, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:53 (10 minutes ago) Link</i>

"jokes" was horrible word choice on my part--john is right--but come on, do you really think that having a punny song title is the same as making music that is formally and sonically <i>humorous</i>? eh. don cab always struck me as definitively unfunny, they just tried to compensate with SURREAL HEADLINES.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ha, I didn't even read the review, so I didn't know it was you, Mike.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:11 (8 years ago) Permalink

There is a strong semantic difference between "humor" and "jokes"; they shouldn't be used interchangeably and, based on your followup here, you definitely meant the former.

Also, why did you use "but" as your conjunction? The second clause does not invert, negate, contradict or palpably change the meaning of the first clause (Mirrored being defined by pictoral sensibility and humor is not a condition that lies in opposition to it viewing rock as a set of puzzle pieces), so your sentence winds up not making any sense; you've either left out a critical piece of information or just flat-out used the wrong word.

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:19 (8 years ago) Permalink

There is a strong semantic difference between "humor" and "jokes"; they shouldn't be used interchangeably and, based on your followup here, you definitely meant the former.

Also, why did you use "but" as your conjunction? The second clause does not invert, negate, contradict or palpably change the meaning of the first clause (Mirrored being defined by pictoral sensibility and humor is not a condition that lies in opposition to it viewing rock as a set of puzzle pieces), so your sentence winds up not making any sense; you've either left out a critical piece of information or just flat-out used the wrong word.

-- HI DERE, Friday, November 2, 2007 8:19 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you're right, 'but' wasn't a great choice. i think the idea was to say that though it had this puzzle-like quality--you could talk about how the parts fit together, like everyone does in a math-rock review--it was, for me, defined by these more abstract qualities: its sense of humor, its ability to be pictorally evocative. sure, i get what you're saying.

but seriously--human being here, willing to engage, bristles as asinine comments like the "knock-knock joke" one. furthermore--and i'd never slag scott or mark because i know they're incredibly busy guys--i think you bring the same charges to an editor. just saying.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:28 (8 years ago) Permalink

sorry, you *could* bring the same charges. lord i grow weary of life's endless ironies.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

I'm just glad you're writing regularly.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

I think I'm pretty much firmly on record as someone who thinks there are a lot of editors out there who aren't doing what they should. This mostly stems from a desire to be an editor (ha).

Also I think the egregious misspelling of "hear" is more offensive than the actual knock-knock joke comment (which was an allusion to a recently-revived ILE thread).

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:35 (8 years ago) Permalink

Joke: pretending "Atlas" has a different lyric when he is very clearly singing

people like to
people like to
eat a sandwich

nabisco, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

Also I think the egregious misspelling of "hear" is more offensive than the actual knock-knock joke comment (which was an allusion to a recently-revived ILE thread).

-- HI DERE, Friday, November 2, 2007 8:35 PM (44 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

and there i thought you were just aping my ignorance and carelessness.

mike powell, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

(xpost - that's not actually funny, of course: people do like them some sandwiches)

nabisco, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:39 (8 years ago) Permalink

i always heard the "eat a sandwich" bit as "penis terror"

ciderpress, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:41 (8 years ago) Permalink

there is an excellent interview with Scott Hull of Masterdisk in the new issue of Tape Op Magazine that i just got in the mail. very illuminating.

scott seward, Friday, 20 May 2016 19:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

also a long interview with Don Was that is good. don't think i knew that he was now the president of blue note records.

scott seward, Friday, 20 May 2016 19:22 (1 week ago) Permalink

i certainly didn't

da vinci beaver testicles (contenderizer), Friday, 20 May 2016 19:43 (1 week ago) Permalink

that mastering article was so disappointing

just sayin, Friday, 20 May 2016 21:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

no one knows what they do... so we wont try to explain

just sayin, Friday, 20 May 2016 21:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

this fits my lifestyle and my kicky new windswept summer look.

http://wwd.com/media-news/fashion-memopad/conde-nast-traveler-pitchfork-launch-musical-magazine-spotify-10434908/

scott seward, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:28 (3 days ago) Permalink

ow, that mastering article made me angry! One because, it reeks of non-musician-dumbsplains-music-stuff, and two because I actually have a hard time believing MC Schmidt doesn't know what mastering is!

Here's mastering: after a track has been recorded and mixed, you send the completed audio file to a mastering engineer. He makes (usually subtle) changes to it, including compression, EQ and overall volume/gain. The important difference between this process, and the mixing process, is that in mastering, you're working with a single audio file -- the whole song, that's already been recorded and mixed -- which is why the changes are usually subtle (but important).

Why would that have been so hard to explain in that article, like maybe somewhere in the first couple of paragraphs?

Dominique, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:49 (3 days ago) Permalink

Re: "Traveler"

Yep, nothing makes me feel like I'm barrelling down the open road of summer like the line "he came out a little late / maybe that's where frustration's born"

geoffreyess, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 18:55 (3 days ago) Permalink

hey dominique that's a really good and concise explanation!

niels, Thursday, 26 May 2016 09:13 (2 days ago) Permalink

L.F.W

da vinci beaver testicles (contenderizer), Thursday, 26 May 2016 13:40 (2 days ago) Permalink

this is still one of my favorite interviews on mastering: http://roberthenke.com/interviews/mastering.html

μpright mammal (mh), Thursday, 26 May 2016 14:35 (2 days ago) Permalink

Here's mastering: after a track has been recorded and mixed, you send the completed audio file to a mastering engineer. He makes (usually subtle) changes to it, including compression, EQ and overall volume/gain. The important difference between this process, and the mixing process, is that in mastering, you're working with a single audio file -- the whole song, that's already been recorded and mixed -- which is why the changes are usually subtle (but important).

no offense, but let me translate that to a general audience because you lost me at "mastering":

the master is given a box containing an ocean of sound. they pour the water out onto the board with hundreds of unknowable knobs and waves begin to form over certain areas. the master makes a few adjustments, and then turns to talk to the biggest asshole musician of all time, plus his evil twin manager who does the talking. everyone pretends that everything is pretty good but could be a little better. after sending the noobs out for a restroom break, the master adds a little Oomph to the low end and a little twizzle to the high end (these correspond with sounds that bounce off of the ear lobe and the top part of the ear, respectively). the most important part of mastering is maintaining a straight face at the end of the process, after the high fives, when the master talks about what changes were made and why. this is difficult for both parties in the conversation but absolutely necessary for a good mastering job.

I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Thursday, 26 May 2016 15:47 (2 days ago) Permalink

lol

Οὖτις, Thursday, 26 May 2016 15:52 (2 days ago) Permalink

classic behind the scenes footage of the mastering process:

I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Thursday, 26 May 2016 16:00 (2 days ago) Permalink

So what you're saying is you would have been lost at the headline of any article about mastering.

Dominique, Thursday, 26 May 2016 16:03 (2 days ago) Permalink

actual photograph of famed mastering engineer steve hoffman

tylerw, Thursday, 26 May 2016 16:03 (2 days ago) Permalink

xpost

thanks niels!

Dominique, Thursday, 26 May 2016 16:03 (2 days ago) Permalink

lol dominique i was just kidding, and i agree with niels btw!

I look forward to hearing from you shortly, (Karl Malone), Thursday, 26 May 2016 16:06 (2 days ago) Permalink

haha ok. I so rarely do anything helpful for anyone, was too protective of my paragraph

Dominique, Thursday, 26 May 2016 16:10 (2 days ago) Permalink

in real life laugh out loud at "after the high fives"

tylerw, Thursday, 26 May 2016 16:11 (2 days ago) Permalink

KM that's some top notch Clickhole style writing

Evan, Thursday, 26 May 2016 17:17 (2 days ago) Permalink

I'm about to send an album out for mastering. Is there like a Yelp for finding someone good or is it all word of mouth?

Heez, Thursday, 26 May 2016 21:22 (2 days ago) Permalink

Gary is great.

schwantz, Thursday, 26 May 2016 21:28 (2 days ago) Permalink

do you have enough money for Howie Weinberg

Οὖτις, Thursday, 26 May 2016 21:30 (2 days ago) Permalink

If your music is loud/heavy, I recommend James Plotkin.

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, 26 May 2016 22:03 (2 days ago) Permalink

kind of amazed james plotkin even has ears at this point. but yeah, he's great.

like $500 billion in stuffed fart sales and I have an idea (contenderizer), Friday, 27 May 2016 01:29 (Yesterday) Permalink

If your music is loud/heavy, I recommend James Plotkin.

― Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, May 26, 2016 6:03 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

kind of amazed james plotkin even has ears at this point. but yeah, he's great.

― like $500 billion in stuffed fart sales and I have an idea (contenderizer), Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:29 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Thirded. Firsthand experience, that guy's great

Wimmels, Friday, 27 May 2016 02:17 (Yesterday) Permalink


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