pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

it is practically impossible to find a GIF of Steven Tyler with the words "STEP OFF HATER" on it

but I can't imagine having such a low opinion of myself that I'd say "well! I suppose everyone wants to hear what I thought about this review that ran this morning, well here is my REBUTTAL!" the fuck. I like music criticism! the critic's job is not to understand you on your own terms, it's to report on how your attempt to communicate your vision came across

that's the way *you* would respond to criticism, sure--but that may or may not be the same angle that Fleet Foxes dude or Andy Falkous is coming from. FF could just be talkin shit on twitter for fun you know? And as others have said, this is the way Falkous comes across live, as a caustic bastard so why wouldn't he respond this way? totally agree that it's not the critics job to understand you on your own terms. . . but, i dunno, i've said this a bunch already but i think the FOTL post is hilarious.

wait, if FF dude is so caustic why does FF music sound like a wet lavender fart

FF could just be talkin shit on twitter for fun you know?

He's not actually in Fleet Foxes anymore, but yes, he's not doing it seriously at all. All of his interviews and public appearances have been affected/ridiculous.

Falkous is the caustic one, he's not in FF

he's in FOTL

*farts with lavender*

I'm talking about Tillman. Whose record is pretty damn good, and not very Fleet Foxes-y at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-JbfKF_x90

I'm not going to indict anybody but myself on this count but my "Saved to drafts" folder contains years of unsent
'responses to criticism', maybe ten total. I don't think it's pathetic or amateur or indicative of any failing on anybody's part to get butthurt about a shit review. xp

haha reading comprehension is not my friend today, apparently

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aGTEHc0v24

to be clear, in general responding to criticism is prob a bad idea, but if you're going to do it a) noting clearly whatever blatant inaccuracy cheesed you off, b) making clear you poop on the critic's head and c) shutting the fuck up after a & b is probably most likely to inspire lols and make the critic feel lame.

a) I agree b) blow me c)

I can only assume that ‘John Stossel’ is the kind of peculiarly North American reference that pervades the reviews which sit about websites of this type, acting as smug and impenetrable signifiers of absolutely nothing at all. I, the ‘author’, googled ‘Mr Stossel’ and can find no absolute evidence of a monopoly of commonsense on his part let alone any indication that he and I could agree that the term has any unified or even loosely defined meaning. I do, however, detect the ascribing to us of the safe, conservative values which are exhibited far more freely within your own work and again, applaud you for attempting to deal with your complicity and guilt in such a public forum.

I mean really

i mean you either think that is hilarious or you don't

(hint: it's hilarious)

I, a poster, found it "hilarious."

A+

constantly referencing how self-aware you are that you are doing something stupid actually makes it more stupid

jesus stop ascribing your conservative values on the rest of us, cad

i mean someone needs to take ian cohen down a notch but this was not the way

eh, it's just a ranty blog post. intermittently funny, but not funny enough. nbd in any event.

lol alfred

Did alfred just out cad as Jesus? wow.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51irMu%2B2WLL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

"not funny enough"--contenderizer

to be clear, in general responding to criticism is prob a bad idea, but if you're going to do it a) noting clearly whatever blatant inaccuracy cheesed you off, b) making clear you poop on the critic's head and c) shutting the fuck up after a & b is probably most likely to inspire lols and make the critic feel lame.

― da croupier, Thursday, May 31, 2012 3:59 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah but in this case i don't know why making Cohen feel lame should be a worthy goal. the gist of the review was basically "this guy is a genius but he's made better records" and the guy's response was to liken the reviewer's fandom to a vengeful ex stalking his high school sweetheart.

and i mean, the majority of the time you're reviewing a record by one of your favorite artists, it's probably not their masterpiece, so i kind of hate the idea of being on the receiving end of a rant like that from one of my heroes just because i wrote "i love this guy but this album, not so much"

well, look at the comments: fanboys who think like Metacritic programmers.

constantly referencing how self-aware you are that you are doing something stupid actually makes it more stupid

IAWTC

If you think this guy is so bad at responding to a negative review, why don't you respond to a negative review! See, not so easy!!!!

(addressed to everyone but aero)

wait, if FF dude is so caustic why does FF music sound like a wet lavender fart

He Farts Lavender by Owen Pallett - the spiritual successor to He Poos Clouds.

On the actual point, whingeing about a bad review is infinitely dumb, but I'd exclude correcting blatant factual inaccuracies from this, especially as such things are liable to be repeated uncritically if not challenged.

I felt the high-school sweetheart comparison was the most telling. Falkous seems to have read Cohen's "love the musician, cool on the record" review as a proxy for what he believes was unsaid: that Cohen just doesn't 'need' this music in 2012. That Cohen's moved on, Falkous has gotten old.

Less of a criticism of the record itself, that is, more a "it's not you, you're great, but I've moved on"

yeah but in this case i don't know why making Cohen feel lame should be a worthy goal.

well, in this case, for lazy use of the word "corporate" and for accusing them of tackling weak subject matter that they weren't even tackling.

but as i said the "hi hack" first part of the screed is definitely better than the "hi hater" second half

Wait a minute, how do we know Future of the Left didn't just retroactively change the subject matter after Ian made fun of it?!

i don't understand ledes like "Opening your first album in nearly 20 years with a song called "That Time Is Gone" is either bracingly honest or immensely foolhardy-- or possibly both."

One day in early 2010, the internet message board I Love Music began discussing the Pazz and Jop poll, which the Village Voice had recently published on its website. The Voice has conducted Pazz and Jop annually since 1971. Hundreds of music critics submit lists ranking their favorite albums and singles, and the Voice compiles two master lists identifying the year’s best music. It is the main event in American popular music criticism. On I Love Music, the Pazz and Jop thread chugged slowly along for a few hours. Then Scott Plagenhoef, editor-in- chief of the music website Pitchfork, began posting under the name “scottpl,” and things picked up speed. “11 of the top 13 LPs and five of the top six singles are shared between this and the Pitchfork list,” Plagenhoef wrote. “For what it’s worth.”

haha awesome

old article is old

old meme is meme

2010 BCE

Ready for their self-congratulatory festival stuff to disappear from the front page.

So are they taking all week off with new reviews?

had to go two whole days thinking for yourself, huh?

What the fuck, dude? Just curious is all.

hahaha, sorry, easy basket

Ready for their self-congratulatory festival stuff to disappear from the front page.

Never really understood the criticism of P4k's festival coverage as self-congratulatory. (You're not the only one I've heard that from.) It's a major rock festival by now, and P4k writers have the benefit of being on the inside, so they can document it better than anyone. Obviously, they're not going to openly criticize the festival, but I don't think the features they produce are masquerading as rigorous analyses. And if the coverage precludes new content, I figure it's because most of the office is still on vacation mode.