pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5670 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 (13 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 (13 years ago) Permalink

best e-mail address ever, eh starbar?

dudley, Tuesday, 2 April 2002 00:00 (13 years ago) Permalink

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

Sarah, Wednesday, 3 April 2002 00:00 (13 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 (13 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

nabisco, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:10 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's more that they used that as their _hook_

x-post

lukas, Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:20 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

omg that is horrorshow

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

HI DERE, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:18 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

Mr. Que, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm more bothered by beck as impeccable influence

dmr, Thursday, 1 November 2007 20:24 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

ugh, "impeccable influences" is really repulsive.

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:46 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

He was worked up?

roxymuzak, Friday, 2 November 2007 18:49 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:16 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

richter scale is logarithmic xpost

but kudos nonetheless

elan, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:42 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

wtf, wtf -- wtf? -- wtf!

Hurting 2, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

the incorporation of JOKES

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

ya i saw that too... pretty lazy writing

s1ocki, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:46 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

joeks, bruv

Ned Raggett, Friday, 2 November 2007 19:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

HI DERE, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:06 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm just glad you're writing regularly.

jaymc, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:29 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

nabisco, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

ciderpress, Friday, 2 November 2007 20:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think appreciation of the review depends on thinking that PC Music justifies that kind of analysis. If not, it reads as overblown. By taking a more sceptical approach the Guardian feature gave readers who suspect that it's bullshit more to chew on.

Continue your brooding monologue (Re-Make/Re-Model), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 15:03 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

PC Music is just a bit of fun, let's be cool

an absolute feast of hardcore fanboy LOLs surrounding (imago), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 15:50 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Getting through this entire album is an unbelievable chore

clikbait ikatowi (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:03 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

This melody is like a Garth & Kat sketch.

https://open.spotify.com/track/4FFLoQUHYvKaa3aU2gE7Rz

clikbait ikatowi (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I think appreciation of the review depends on thinking that PC Music justifies that kind of analysis.

― Continue your brooding monologue (Re-Make/Re-Model)

no it fucking doesn't, this is stan logic. (or, maybe more accurately, comments section logic.) if your criteria for whether a review is good are "do I agree with this score?" then that's your problem and you should probably deal with it.

katherine, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

IT'S beeeEEEYUUUN

clikbait ikatowi (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:06 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

this is pretty terrible writing sorry: "Instead of affection, they’ll give you a heart-shaped simulacrum—and maybe, as suggests PC Music, that’s what you wanted after all. When physical presence is a source of so much complication, sometimes an abstraction is the only thing a person can bear," and if you're going to ref baudrillard i think you need to do more w/ it than describe the aesthetics - there needs to be a broader reading of how PC Music a. reflects society at large, b. is even more real than the society it nominally represents.

Mordy, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:08 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

'heart-shaped simulacrum' i don't even know i guess it sounds pretty

Mordy, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:09 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

"simulacrum" is sufficiently well-known as a concept that writers can now use it without spending 1000 words per piece wanking about Baudrillard (who is never mentioned; if you really want to read a PC Music/Baudrillard take then that's also on you)

katherine, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:14 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

'You wish you didn’t live in a world that produced PC Music, but you do—and because you do, thank the god in the machine for PC Music. It’ll come whispering and screaming in an absolute vacuum; it’s a party reconstituted long after anyone’s been there to laugh. It’s empty, and yet somehow the stakes are monumental. Can you chip your way to the real through this pixelated thicket? Well, you can, and worse, you have to.' idk, maybe the review is kinda doing what it claims PC Music is doing - layered vapid signifiers as an empty artificial representation of content - which is clever, i guess. but i don't really know what much of this is trying to say. how is PC Music a 'god in the machine'? it is coming to save us from itself? why does it exist in an absolute vacuum? i thought the point was that it was an artificial representation of reality? and is it itself smashing some kind of alienated access to the real, or do you have to chip through yourself as a listener? if its the latter, why do we need PC Music at all? bc it's so gross that it serves as a wake-up call?

Mordy, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:14 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

sorry this is probably giving it much more thought than it wants. as a review mirroring the pastiche of PC Music it is very clever and i like some of the turns of phrases in it. which is a lot like my appreciation for PC Music - some of it is catchy. not much more than that.

Mordy, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

katherine, I wasn't actually criticising the review. I was just trying to figure out why some posters thought it was so awful and wondered if it was more to do with intense dislike of PC Music's schtick than the writing itself. But that obviously backfired.

One thing about PC Music's alleged relationship to mainstream pop - mainstream US/UK pop doesn't sound like this. This sounds more like the sort of thing Richard X was doing 10 years ago, ie already quite cute and knowing. Tweak Keri Baby or In My Dreams slightly and they could be Annie singles.

Continue your brooding monologue (Re-Make/Re-Model), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

"sorry this is probably giving it much more thought than it wants"

i'd say the review was a success. made ya think - made ya think!

scott seward, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:20 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I'm down for hearing some PC Music, if anyone wants to post a link. I just thought the review said very little about the music itself and read more like a press release from OK Computer or something.

©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:20 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

lots of music in the PS thing on PC that i linked to above:

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/485-pc-music/

scott seward, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:22 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Maybe that slightly anachronistic Eurodance style is simply their preferred aesthetic delivery agent for their brand of distilled funhouse mirror euphoria?

an absolute feast of hardcore fanboy LOLs surrounding (imago), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:24 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I also think PC Music have breathed life into *something*, although I'm not sure what. Max Tundra was roused to recruit Daphne & Celeste (awesome song btw) almost certainly as a result of their activities

an absolute feast of hardcore fanboy LOLs surrounding (imago), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I like the misuse of auto-tune in these. It seems weird that auto-tune isn't mentioned at all in any of those articles.

©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

You auto-tune the vocals to get them perfect and then you run them through again, crank up the displacement, and the result is that cool tape-warping effect.

©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 5 May 2015 16:32 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i liked the review

kurt kobaïan (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Thursday, 7 May 2015 21:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

is it autotune or melodyne? i think pc music seems more melodyne

soyrev, Friday, 8 May 2015 02:28 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

new Pitchfork Review is out. best kenny rogers review ever!

scott seward, Friday, 8 May 2015 18:51 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

recently looked up this weirdly brutal review of a perfectly fine record, hard to believe it came from 2012 rather than the early 00's.
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/17136-mumps-etc/

lil urbane (Jordan), Thursday, 21 May 2015 18:31 (Yesterday) Permalink

Don't know where else to put this.

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/17499-destroyer-dream-lover/

"The saxophones on "Dream Lover" are not mournful, but exuberant. They don’t wander in, like a lonesome lush looking for last call. They leap out, as does Bejar, who’s at his Falstaffian apex. He’s romantic and rakish, singing about wind-swept adventures with his dream lover in that recognizably world weary voice, while peppering in a few bashful profanities. The music ascends toward a joyous conclusion, the saxophones squalling in indefatigable glee."

Isn't one of those saxophones actually a trumpet?

Indexed, Thursday, 21 May 2015 19:38 (Yesterday) Permalink

een, Friday, 22 May 2015 00:35 (18 hours ago) Permalink

fuck people writing out their daydreams to describe music
vision ain't sound motherfuckers get a real job

The Once-ler, Friday, 22 May 2015 01:39 (17 hours ago) Permalink

lol i had no idea pitchfork prints a magazine now, did everybody here bitch about it for several days

brimstead, Friday, 22 May 2015 05:16 (13 hours ago) Permalink


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