The 2016 ILX Hosting Fundraiser has hit its goal! Thanks everyone

pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (7421 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

aw i love this http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1083-lisa-simpsons-second-grade-blues/

flappy bird, Monday, 18 April 2016 17:02 (1 week ago) Permalink

Pfft. "Lisa's Sax" was a Season 9 episode, not a Season 3 episode!
I hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

MarkoP, Monday, 18 April 2016 17:10 (1 week ago) Permalink

Only four album reviews up today instead of the usual five.

Position Position, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:27 (1 week ago) Permalink

Maybe there are no other new albums?

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

Sturgill is so good it counts as two albums

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

4 reviews fits their layout better

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:32 (1 week ago) Permalink

on mobile

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 13:33 (1 week ago) Permalink

"Animal Collective’s most mysterious member."

clog dabussy (fgti), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 14:04 (1 week ago) Permalink

sneaky deaky

Whiney G. Weingarten, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 14:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

And this is why there are only four reviews:
http://pitchfork.com/news/64915-pitchfork-to-publish-album-reviews-on-saturdays/

MarkoP, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

also genre tags are back for album reviews

marcos, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:45 (1 week ago) Permalink

though maybe this has been the case for a while? maybe i missed it

marcos, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

I kind of like this change.

Austin, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

do you any of you remember when they used to do that? there would be microgenres too like i remember "glitch" being there

marcos, Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

2016 marks the 20th anniversary of the Squirrel Nut Zippers most celebrated and commercially successful album Hot. Originally released in the summer of 1996, Hot was the follow up to the band’s critically acclaimed debut The Inevitable. By this time the group had already established a substantial live following across the country thanks to early support from NPR, college radio and non-commercial stations. Hot wound up selling over 1.3 million copies.

Pitchfork, which was in it’s second year of operation at the time, raved about Hot giving it a 9.5 and saying: “When you first splashdown into the CD, ya hit this realization: that people even older than your parents liked music like this. …Hot is exuberant, gin house swing without apologies and it rocks without pretense. If you can manage to resist liking it, you must be dead.”

ulysses, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:38 (3 days ago) Permalink

my two year old says a lot of dumb stuff

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:40 (3 days ago) Permalink

ya hit this realization

ulysses, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:42 (3 days ago) Permalink

ya just hit that realization?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 26 April 2016 16:42 (3 days ago) Permalink

Father John Misty Tells Two Stories About Beyoncé Collaboration: One Real, One Fake

what a coincidence, i don't give two shits about this: one real, one fake

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 26 April 2016 22:26 (3 days ago) Permalink

Ha ha ha. Yeah, pfork's embrace of this clown is consistently shocking to me, even when taking into account how terrible nu-pfork is

Wimmels, Tuesday, 26 April 2016 22:46 (3 days ago) Permalink

Holy shit

Pitchfork to Review Key Albums in the Prince Catalog

This is like what the 35th Prince related headline so far in the past week?

Evan, Thursday, 28 April 2016 19:39 (Yesterday) Permalink

they needed a headline to let people know what old albums they're planning on reviewing

billstevejim, Thursday, 28 April 2016 19:42 (Yesterday) Permalink

Pitchfork to Announce that Pitchfork to Review Key Albums in the Prince Catalog

Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Thursday, 28 April 2016 19:55 (Yesterday) Permalink

I wonder if they'll give Purple Rain a 10?

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:12 (Yesterday) Permalink

it is kind of corny how they do this isn't it

marcos, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:25 (Yesterday) Permalink

would be funnier/more interesting if they just reviewed the albums nobody knows/remembers - The Gold Experience, Come, Rainbow Children, Rave un2 the Joy Fantastic, Musicology etc.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:29 (Yesterday) Permalink

There's an article for every single Prince cover this week as well.

Evan, Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:50 (Yesterday) Permalink


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