― gareth, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― dleone, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― dudley, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Sarah, Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
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 (11 years ago) Permalink
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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
Wait, are you saying that doesn't seem accurate?
― nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:10 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
it's more that they used that as their _hook_
x-post
― lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:20 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
omg that is horrorshow
The blurb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the article quote
― HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:18 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
why would a critic ever try to guess where a song comes from?
― Mr. Que, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:23 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence
― dmr, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:24 (5 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. 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.
― Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:46 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
He was worked up?
― roxymuzak, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:49 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
shit, now i need to reevaluate all my purchases of the last five years.
― elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:16 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
if anything, that reads like a good reason not to check out the album....
― stephen, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
richter scale is logarithmic xpost
but kudos nonetheless
― elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:42 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
wtf, wtf -- wtf? -- wtf!
― Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
the incorporation of JOKES
― s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
ya i saw that too... pretty lazy writing
How can you get paid to write if you don't know what "but" means?
― HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:51 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
joeks, bruv
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:56 (5 years ago) Permalink
You can here an interpolation of classic knock-knock jokes in "Atlas".
― HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:06 (5 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 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm just glad you're writing regularly.
― jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:29 (5 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 (5 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- 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 (5 years ago) Permalink
(xpost - that's not actually funny, of course: people do like them some sandwiches)
― nabisco, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
i always heard the "eat a sandwich" bit as "penis terror"
― ciderpress, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
http://web.archive.org/web/20011121175939/pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/h/handsome-boy-modeling-school/so-hows-your-girl.shtml
Old review of the first Handsome Boy Modelling School album. Do you even underground, bro?
― Popture, Friday, 12 April 2013 01:43 (1 month ago) Permalink
haha that was one of the first pf reviews i ever read
― some dude, Friday, 12 April 2013 01:50 (1 month ago) Permalink
In the wake of the fatal car crash that claimed the former Princess of Wales, concerts across a grieving U.K. were cancelled en masse-- including a handful of Primal Scream dates in London, the promoter of which claimed the band were kiboshing “out of a mark of respect for Diana.” This came as news to the band, who issued a reactionary retort claiming, “We wanted to play... We have no respect whatsoever for Diana Spencer or any member of the English Royal Family. We are totally opposed to the monarchy.”
i am being a pedant but just in so many ways this is not a "reactionary retort"
― daft on the causes of punk (schlump), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:20 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
it's a retortive reaction
― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
that timeline about their political "awakening" seemed a little screwy to me, it glosses over Vanishing Point ("Star", the title track) which foreshadowed XTRMNTR pretty clearly
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
the review did make me a lot more interested in this album than that first video did, I'll give it that
lol you dorks still read pitchfork ??
― H3LP, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:47 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― Evan, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 17:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
give 'em H3LL
― congo nattefrost (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 8 May 2013 18:10 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
can someone explain to this print dinosaur if there is some internet economy / click-based / revenue-driven reason for Advance to NOT have a pause button? it's maddening. ok that might be overstating it a bit.
― alpine static, Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:24 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I wonder if labels insist?
― jay-z's ansari (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 10 May 2013 19:09 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
this interview with dude from surfer blood about his domestic battery arrest is not very good
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 10 May 2013 19:18 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
oh you didn't hit her? oh ok. you want to talk more about what did happen? no? oh ok. so maybe we should talk to the other person involved instead of just relying on your perspective? no? ok.
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 10 May 2013 19:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
like maybe they just couldn't get the full story, which is fine, but then you don't have to run the story instead of just publishing this mild, vague, spineless thing
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 10 May 2013 19:24 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I kinda feel like the interview gives the guy enough rope (although it could stand to link back to the previous PF news item with the police report that disturbingly details what he did that was not 'hitting'). A q&a with an individual, even a controversial one, need not be held to the standards of a reported piece with multiple sources.
― seanpennderizer (some dude), Friday, 10 May 2013 19:46 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
wow yeah, I just read that. I was wondering why he was being so precise about saying "I never hit anybody" multiple times.
― wk, Friday, 10 May 2013 19:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
i don't really see what was wrong with it? except surfer blood is a horrible band regardless of the singer's record.
― call all destroyer, Friday, 10 May 2013 20:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
ha otm
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 10 May 2013 20:11 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
i guess some dude is right but the thing just felt pointless and perspectiveless and like there was a big hole in the middle with missing questions and answers
― congratulations (n/a), Friday, 10 May 2013 20:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Surfer Blood getting desperate for "hits"
― Evan, Friday, 10 May 2013 20:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
either that or it's something to do with streaming royalty rates. it's more expensive to have a completely on-demand service and less expensive to have "Internet radio" where the listener has more limited control over what's playing.
although since it's obviously set up in collaboration with the record companies I don't know if they pay royalties on that or what.
― dmr, Friday, 10 May 2013 20:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― call all destroyer, Friday, May 10, 2013 4:04 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark
i think the problem with that piece is that even though it tries to stay neutral, by design it works really hard only to engender sympathy for someone who doesn't really need or deserve it (i.e. "did this case make it harder to concentrate on your music?")
― J0rdan S., Friday, 10 May 2013 20:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
i doubt his victim would want to talk about this so that seems like a pipe dream to me and i admire PF's willingness to wade into the fire here because surfer blood is a band everyone could ignore with no consequences but i think it wasn't pushy enough in places and just... sort of a lose-lose proposition
― J0rdan S., Friday, 10 May 2013 20:47 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Holy shit, I forgot that Surfer Blood was even a band, let alone this happened. I assumed they were touring in bizarro world with Tapes n Tapes and Clap Your Hands and some other oh-yeah bands.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 May 2013 20:55 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Surfer Blood recently played a cafe here, so I don't know that you're far off
― P is for Poo Poo Doo Doo (Sufjan Grafton), Saturday, 11 May 2013 04:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Blood Surfer would have been a much better name
― Treeship, Saturday, 11 May 2013 04:27 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
yet another mistake for surfer blood
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Saturday, 11 May 2013 04:27 (2 weeks ago) Permalink