pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

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.

I don't begrudge them the coverage at all really, it just sort of seems to expand every year. As much as people still disparage them around here, I do enjoy reading their reviews from time to time and I was just hoping the site was back closer to normal. They can have their coverage, but seems like by now they could be running reviews again too.

geez you guys, they put up a ton of videos, good photos of bands, cute reports of each set, etc.

Pitchfork is mostly a PR firm in its current incarnation tbh

i would be congratulating myself if lady gaga was attending the music festival i started and i could book basically any band i wanted.

uh, why would pitchfork the profitable and culturally relevant music site not promote their own profitable and culturally relevant music festival? seems a weird thing to be grudgeful about. like if the rolling stone devoted an issue every year to the rolling stone musical olds festival, i wouldn't be offended. why don't they, btw? are the olds no longer musical?

Oh man people are putting a lot of words into my post that aren't there. I don't care that they promote it, I don't care that they cover it, I don't care that they recap it, I just was wishing that it didn't take over the site completely for this week too.

but the week's not over yet -- it's Tuesday

jfc you guys are bored to nitpick my posts to death itt. here, let me try again.

"Boy, I wish Pitchfork would publish some regular reviews again. I'm bored with the festival coverage."

Yeah, sorry, j/v/c, I don't think I'd have reacted if I hadn't seen the same sentiment elsewhere.

you sure do get pissed off when ppl respond to your posts

lol no, the only post that bothered me at all was whiney's accusing me of not being able to think for myself. the others i was just clarifying that i didn't say pfork shouldn't be able to promote/cover its festival.

Whiney hates everybody, don't take it personally

oh trust me, I don't take it personally. was just confused becaue whiney'd been pretty tame as of late.

http://image.blingee.com/images19/content/output/000/000/000/7b4/771031931_244287.gif

^hell yea

laughing so hard at that. it's the cracker i think. the wild wild cracker.

Holy shit that boat just moved, I swear.

Of all the shit I hate Pitchfork —the archive scrubbing, the attention-whoring bad reviews, the attention-whoring coverage for certain bands and non-coverage for other bands— I was never really genuinely moved to a feeling of actual anger about something they did until just a few months ago when they reviewed the Poor Moon Illusion EP.

(fyi: Poor Moon is a band fronted by Christian Wargo, former {?} bass player of Fleet Foxes)

Despite loving everything I've heard from the band so far, I will be the first to admit that the EP is very similar in sound to Fleet Foxes (nothing else they've leaked out or played live sounds remotely like it, but I digress).

The review on Pitchfork for Illusion (which is not very favorable) states Robin Pecknold's name more times than it does all of the members of Poor Moon combined.

Robin Pecknold is not in the band.

Robin Pecknold is not on the EP.

Robin Pecknold had nothing to do with it.

(Josh Tillman —not an official member of the band— actually plays on a couple songs and does not even receive a mention)

Following the Poor Moon Twitter, I noticed that they had a lot more free tickets to give away after Pitchfork ran the review.

To Christian Wargo's credit, he responded by playing more shows.

jvc this morning when his browser loads pitchfork front page and he sees new album reviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlcqWQVVuU

dying

so glad i'm just a punchline around here.

most of the other people posting in this thread are punchlines too. dont take it personally.

jon you'd be treated differently if we DIDN'T joke around when we found unintentional humor in your posts. i mean if you want to be seen as worthy of or in need of special treatment because you're too sensitive for it or just too good to ever be the butt of a joke, ok. but if people think "I want to make a harmless joke, but I should hold my tongue because there's not talking to that guy about anything," THAT is what would make you an outcast, not the joke itself.

yeah, but there's a difference between occasionally being the butt of a joke and being the butt of a joke about 90% of the times i post.

http://khonsa02.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny_cat_pictures_pc_3.jpg

yeah, but there's a difference between occasionally being the butt of a joke and being the butt of a joke about 90% of the times i post.

― heated debate over derpy hooves (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, July 18, 2012 9:56 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

oh, dude