pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (8491 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 (fourteen 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 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

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

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

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

five 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 (nine 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 (nine years ago) Permalink

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

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

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

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

omg that is horrorshow

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

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

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

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

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

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

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

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

He was worked up?

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

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

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

richter scale is logarithmic xpost

but kudos nonetheless

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

wtf, wtf -- wtf? -- wtf!

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

the incorporation of JOKES

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

ya i saw that too... pretty lazy writing

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

joeks, bruv

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

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

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

I'm just glad you're writing regularly.

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

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

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

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

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

"Breaking: Arcade Fire covers Go Cubs Go"

nomar, Monday, 7 November 2016 17:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

wu-tang clan, duh

brimstead, Monday, 7 November 2016 18:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink

the thing is.. when i was in high school (yes i am an adult) i would have snickered at many "random celeb + hip band" articles and shared them with my friends (yes i had friends) during lunch.. because i was really into music and using musical matters as a source of self-identification/conversation material..

brimstead, Monday, 7 November 2016 18:46 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Each weekend, Pitchfork posts a long-read review of an album not previously covered in our archives: The Sunday Review (link in bio). Which albums would you like to see covered in The Sunday Review in 2017? Comment below.

Remember how anti-commenting P4K were? Now they're crowdsourcing reviews through comments.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BMeK-ntBx73/

Position Position, Monday, 7 November 2016 21:57 (three weeks ago) Permalink

gonna side with evan on this one, does everyone really think that famous indie music site pitchforkmedia has actually been an avclub-style general entertainment site for the past 15 years? and fwiw i honestly don't care at all that they started chasing tv clicks post-CN takeover, it hasn't made the site better or worse or anything. just seems clear that Evan's right--they usually try to shoehorn some sort of music connection into their TV stories, even when it's laughably minor.

Also this:

think we can all agree that the news section has always been dumb

― tylerw, Monday, November 7, 2016 9:41 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is otm, it's usually just reprinted press releases, right?

intheblanks, Monday, 7 November 2016 22:56 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Everyone's news section is reprinted/retyped press releases, from Rolling Stone on down.

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Tuesday, 8 November 2016 00:28 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I'm worried all these stories about Bill Murray and going to push important things like what cover songs Arcade Fire played in concert last week off the main page

duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Tuesday, 8 November 2016 14:08 (three weeks ago) Permalink

If you read the Chainsmokers review without the sneering tone it sounds like a good record? Especially strange that the review includes this:

" and they themselves are not on trial—the music they make is"

And then the review goes on to praise how catchy and well-crafted the music is. And then gives it 3.5 stars.

idgi

schwantz, Wednesday, 9 November 2016 22:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

also patrick bateman had good taste in music

J0rdan S., Thursday, 10 November 2016 18:48 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Chainsmokers have better hair though

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 November 2016 18:50 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Kendrick Lamar and Shaq Go Soap Shopping in New American Express Commercial: Watch

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 10 November 2016 19:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I think it's clear their transition to General Interest Millennial Male has already begun. Between all the Stranger Things and Twin Peaks content, and now stuff like this:

http://pitchfork.com/news/69785-watch-dave-chappelle-resurrect-chappelles-show-characters-for-a-parody-of-the-walking-dead/
http://pitchfork.com/news/69756-dave-chappelle-snl-monologue-weve-actually-elected-an-internet-troll-as-our-president-watch/
http://pitchfork.com/news/69786-watch-dave-chappelle-and-chris-rocks-election-night-snl-sketch/

Which makes sense, since Conde needs them to scale. I just don't understand why The Dissolve had to go... they'll be doing film reviews again soon enough.

Frozen CD, Monday, 14 November 2016 02:05 (two weeks ago) Permalink

lol https://twitter.com/pitchfork/status/796397594016645120

Frozen CD, Monday, 14 November 2016 02:06 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the dissolve had to go because it couldn't scale, which is because pitchfork decided to start a site strictly about film even tho it was clear that the dominant form of culture in america was television

J0rdan S., Monday, 14 November 2016 05:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

news is different. any blog post post can "scale" inside 24 hours i.e. get a bunch of people to click on it

J0rdan S., Monday, 14 November 2016 05:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

thought this revive would be about the big news about El-P retiring his red ballcap

Wimmels, Monday, 14 November 2016 11:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

meanwhile this is music-related because ... kanye?

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7573677/democrat-president-2020-election-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren

Frozen CD, Monday, 14 November 2016 21:40 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Thats a trade magazine

brimstead, Monday, 14 November 2016 21:57 (two weeks ago) Permalink

http://pitchfork.com/news/69866-drake-is-gonna-fuck

Whiney G. Weingarten, Thursday, 17 November 2016 14:46 (two weeks ago) Permalink

lol

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 17 November 2016 14:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Over the course of our sprawling phone conversation, it became clear to me why artists—like Santigold, Kylie Minogue, and Charli XCX, with whom he co-wrote half of True Romance—might be attracted to Raisen. He is eccentric and electric, prone to spirited stream-of-consciousness monologues on topics such as the conspiracy of radio, ’70s krautrock, and the virtues of golfing. Discussing methods he’s used in recording, he mentions Brian Eno’s “Oblique Strategies” deck, “power manifestation,” and the Self-Realization Fellowship center near his home in L.A. In fact, Raisen came to collaborate with Gordon only after he and the singer-songwriter Lawrence Rothman experimented with chanting her name. “As you can see,” Raisen says, “I’m super heavy on energy.” (That Raisen and I are both natives of Massapequa, N.Y. was but another cosmic force at work.)

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1371-wtf-is-pop-justin-raisen-on-producing-the-future/

made it one and a half paragraphs into this before it turned into abject self-parody. fuck music.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 30 November 2016 01:01 (two days ago) Permalink

energies are important tho

flappy bird, Wednesday, 30 November 2016 01:02 (two days ago) Permalink

Do you resent it when people call you a pop producer?

No, I just get a kick out of it. But also, it's 2016. What the fuck is pop, man? I have no clue. Is pop trap? Trap is pop. The Rihanna record is pop. Pop is not even pop anymore. Pop is now experimental. Experimental is now pop.

every sentence i read i'm throwing up in my mouth

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 30 November 2016 01:06 (two days ago) Permalink

the notes the loon doesn't play (ulysses), Wednesday, 30 November 2016 01:08 (two days ago) Permalink

lol both the article and the subject are pretty hilarious. i'd kick it w/ that dude for a night

I've read Ta-nehisi Coates. (marcos), Wednesday, 30 November 2016 01:17 (two days ago) Permalink

I guess I'm a rebel, but it makes me cringe even watching the VMAs.

That was the sentence that made me really regret not giving up as soon as I saw the goofy-ass photo. Also, I tried listening to the Kim Gordon song and it was shit.

Don Van Gorp, midwest regional VP, marketing (誤訳侮辱), Wednesday, 30 November 2016 01:41 (two days ago) Permalink


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