pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (7727 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

#old #stevereich #basho

tylerw, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 15:05 (4 days ago) Permalink

i figured it was under the pitch section, but the pitch section is nowhere to be found on the page. if you cmd+f "the pitch", the only hit is the link at the bottom of the page for the pitchfork review.

the pitch seems to be a subsection of the latest so it's two pages away when i feel like it used to be a main front page thing. no wonder i couldn't find it.

also i searched for "archive" and "archive.org" initially figuring it would search the body text. also search "elliott smith" seeing as i knew that was one of the concerts highlighted, so figured it would probably be tagged. is their search shit then too?

in twelve parts (lamonti), Wednesday, 22 June 2016 15:10 (4 days ago) Permalink

Actually "elliott smith" is an artist in this story but not a tag, which are only "bootleg" and "Invisible Hits", I guess that's a further subcategory within The Pitch within The Latest within Pitchfork. Obviously.

I think Pitchfork is probably churning out too much and too varied formats to be very well organised yet, and probably are way less concerned with their archive than their front page. A pity though.

in twelve parts (lamonti), Wednesday, 22 June 2016 15:14 (4 days ago) Permalink

I think Pitchfork is probably churning out too much and too varied formats to be very well organised yet

Everything is driven by social media these days, so their lack of "organization" is, in fact, a good organizing principle for having a successful, well-trafficked website

queen elseq of ærendelle (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 22 June 2016 15:31 (4 days ago) Permalink

whiney o.t.m. weingarten

maura, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 15:48 (4 days ago) Permalink

their lack of "organization" is, in fact, a good organizing principle for having a successful, well-trafficked website

I'm not sure I get what you mean?

Either way, I think I should probably have said "well archived" rather than "well organized".

in twelve parts (lamonti), Thursday, 23 June 2016 05:42 (3 days ago) Permalink

Secret Pitchfork Features, Use These Seven Tricks to Find Them!

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 June 2016 13:53 (3 days ago) Permalink

Do you idiots not use google

Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Thursday, 23 June 2016 16:29 (3 days ago) Permalink

fuck google

Οὖτις, Thursday, 23 June 2016 16:34 (3 days ago) Permalink

South London musician Benjy Keating is signed to the acclaimed independent dancehall label Mixpak, where he makes a strange and subdued DIY bedroom-pop version of dancehall.

― de l'asshole (flopson), Tuesday, 21 June 2016 01:20 Bookmark

i still dunno why lucas dipasquale isnt signed to ovo. actually too real i guess

r|t|c, Thursday, 23 June 2016 16:37 (3 days ago) Permalink

If I'm on a site that has a search function I don't expect to have to use google to find something on said site, no.

Position Position, Thursday, 23 June 2016 17:09 (3 days ago) Permalink

I would say that searching for something on a specific site using google works better than using a site's search function approximately 99% of the time

silverfish, Thursday, 23 June 2016 20:22 (3 days ago) Permalink

it's true

maura, Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:01 (3 days ago) Permalink

for instance site:ilxor.com pitchfork

this is basic digital literacy, or should be

a self-reinforcing downward spiral of male-centric indie (katherine), Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:12 (3 days ago) Permalink

That's dumb. The workaround should never be the solution.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:13 (3 days ago) Permalink

as CCR taught us: keep on googlin'

tylerw, Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:15 (3 days ago) Permalink

yeah site: is an ill way of searching for stuff on the internet 2 thumbs up

Steve Gunn Mann-Dude (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:25 (3 days ago) Permalink

That's dumb. The workaround should never be the solution.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, June 23, 2016 5:13 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

de l'asshole (flopson), Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:26 (3 days ago) Permalink

every site should have an in-house search engine as good as the best search engine in the world

de l'asshole (flopson), Thursday, 23 June 2016 21:27 (3 days ago) Permalink

or they could just label their posts

in twelve parts (lamonti), Friday, 24 June 2016 06:36 (2 days ago) Permalink

queen elseq of ærendelle (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 24 June 2016 15:14 (2 days ago) Permalink

Shit's gettin mad boolean up in here

Steve Gunn Mann-Dude (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 24 June 2016 15:20 (2 days ago) Permalink

Showing 0 results for “"More like Pitchdork, amirite?"”

scott seward, Friday, 24 June 2016 15:30 (2 days ago) Permalink

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Friday, 24 June 2016 15:31 (2 days ago) Permalink

bickin' back, bein boolean

de l'asshole (flopson), Friday, 24 June 2016 15:48 (2 days ago) Permalink

every site should have an in-house search engine as good as the best search engine in the world

― de l'asshole (flopson), Thursday, June 23, 2016 5:27 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, they should. You can add a google search box to a website. There is no reason to have a crappy search function.

Position Position, Friday, 24 June 2016 15:52 (2 days ago) Permalink

Bad search is v retro and #vaporwave digging the aesthetics

Steve Gunn Mann-Dude (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 24 June 2016 21:45 (2 days ago) Permalink


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