pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (4178 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

dudley, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Sarah, Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:00 (12 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 (12 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:10 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:20 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

omg that is horrorshow

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

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:18 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

Mr. Que, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

dmr, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:24 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:46 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

He was worked up?

roxymuzak, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:49 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:16 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

richter scale is logarithmic xpost

but kudos nonetheless

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:42 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

wtf, wtf -- wtf? -- wtf!

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

the incorporation of JOKES

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

ya i saw that too... pretty lazy writing

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

joeks, bruv

Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:06 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm just glad you're writing regularly.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:29 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

nabisco, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

ciderpress, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

You can sense that North Carolina rock trio Late Bloomer hears Dinosaur Jr., Hüsker Dü, and Nirvana differently than most revivalists, that they’re doing so without any pretense of sounding cool. In fact, Late Bloomer don’t think of their heroes as "indie rock" at all, but rather as some of the most popular bands of their time, actual heroes who deserve to be spoken of with grand gestures.

A world where Nirvana was among the most popular bands of their time, what a thing to imagine.

franklin, Thursday, 10 July 2014 14:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Right? I noticed that too.

It's that weird "indie vs. mainstream" mindset that I never have, nor probably never will, understand.

austinato (Austin), Thursday, 10 July 2014 15:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Gotta do some serious crate digging to find out about Nirvana.

©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 10 July 2014 15:39 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Pretty sure Ian knows nirvana was very popular

rap steve gadd (D-40), Thursday, 10 July 2014 16:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

*makes swooshing motion with arm* "i speak of NIRVANA"

socki (s1ocki), Thursday, 10 July 2014 18:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Nirvana, they were a Scream side project right?

sinister porpoise (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 11 July 2014 14:17 (1 week ago) Permalink

You know, that band the dude from Sweet 75 was in.

cwkiii, Friday, 11 July 2014 14:22 (1 week ago) Permalink

expanding his sound to include bold elements of vintage country and R&B.

campreverb, Friday, 11 July 2014 15:16 (1 week ago) Permalink

i get that there's a core of truth in even the dumbest/most poorly expressed criticisms, but this is still a pretty dumb thing to say:

And it doesn't render commonplace technology personal and alive—there's not much here that a savvy amateur couldn't do with GarageBand, a low bar to clear when grid-based composition with soft synths is so accessible.

festival culture (Jordan), Tuesday, 15 July 2014 20:21 (1 week ago) Permalink

I used a soft, clear synth to clean my coffee pot this morning.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 July 2014 20:25 (1 week ago) Permalink

Braff’s most vaunted position in pop culture circa 2014 isn’t as the actor who played the annoying guy on the TV show your college roommates watched all the time, or as a fervent Redditor who once assisted in helping someone propose to their girlfriend online, or as a distant blood relative to Mitt Romney. Arguably, he’s not even most known as the guy who directed Garden State—he’s the guy who put together the Garden State soundtrack

I'm always happy to read something taking down this dude, but the idea that he's most famous for putting together the Garden State soundtrack is kind of dumb.

intheblanks, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 21:26 (2 days ago) Permalink

Though I guess it outranks the random Romney factoid pointlessly thrown in there.

intheblanks, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 21:27 (2 days ago) Permalink

Scrubs ran on a major network for 8 years, but yeah he's definitely more famous for really liking Iron & Wine.

voodoo chili, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 21:49 (2 days ago) Permalink

Obviously the assertion that the Garden State music is more renowned than Scrubs is silly, but I definitely know people that are still really into that soundtrack (I seem to recall someone I knew at university telling me it was her all time favourite album)

uxorious gazumping (monotony), Wednesday, 23 July 2014 01:20 (Yesterday) Permalink

Yeah, I definitely feel that it's fair to say that the Garden State soundtrack--and the role it played in mainstreaming a certain idea of indie--is actually Zach Braff's most lasting cultural legacy. But that paragraph makes the odd assertion that he's actually most famous for picking movie soundtrack songs.

intheblanks, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 14:40 (Yesterday) Permalink

The whole review read like someone who hates everything he's heard about Garden State but hasn't actually seen it himself. And I don't mean that in a "he doesn't get it" way- I'm not a fan of the movie.

Evan, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 15:57 (Yesterday) Permalink

I guess I'm just referring mostly to this:

"...obvious visual framing, a reliance on juvenalia for comedic effect, a bizarre focus on discouraging the use of antidepressants for the mentally ill..."

1. Visual framing example was a joke in the movie, right?

2. "Balls" written on the forehead was pretty self-aware iirc (linked image in second point), and not exactly handled in a Dude Where's My Car? fashion.

3. Braff's character wasn't actually mentally ill so wasn't that the conflict? Just now I'm thinking there may have been some lame speech about widespread reliance on medications so that criticism could actually hold.

But this coming from someone completely indifferent to the movie overall. What do I care?

Evan, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:09 (Yesterday) Permalink

An editor once taught me never to start a sentence with "arguably." You're already making the argument. It's redundant.

Didn't people dress in trash bags in that movie? Something like that?

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:26 (Yesterday) Permalink

I think that was a makeshift rain poncho solution.

Evan, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:30 (Yesterday) Permalink

He spends four paragraphs talking about all the baggage of Garden Sate before getting onto the soundtrack at hand. a) who needs that recap after a decade of "Shins will change your life" hackery, and b) give the new soundtrack at least a little credit and try to judge it on its own terms.

sctttnnnt (pgwp), Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:35 (Yesterday) Permalink

yeah, i knew as soon as i saw that as the lead that it would be an extremely low grade plus some Braff-bashing.

intheblanks, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:36 (Yesterday) Permalink

I'm fine with Braff-bashing tbh just feel like this was a particularly low quality version.

intheblanks, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:37 (Yesterday) Permalink

@Evan Feel like he was trying to find new ways to criticize a move that's already been beaten to death. But the established things that are awful about Garden State (extreme solipsism, underwritten cliche as female lead, some random quirky idea functioning as the driving force behind each scene, Shins scene) are bad enough; "it includes visual gags" is a much weaker criticism.

intheblanks, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:50 (Yesterday) Permalink

Right! It's a weird position to be in when you have to defend something you don't like or are otherwise indifferent towards because the other person is criticizing minor or irrelevant details.

Evan, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:58 (Yesterday) Permalink

i think it's time to pack this one up guys

socki (s1ocki), Wednesday, 23 July 2014 16:59 (Yesterday) Permalink

garden state is shit (#31467846953264847 in a series)

wins, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 17:08 (Yesterday) Permalink


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