pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

what exactly is wrong with "workmanlike" again

not all men work

Nothing! But they used it in the top two reviews. Any editor worth their salt would have picked up on that and found a way to shoehorn it into the other three.

any editor with a workmanlike approach anyway

"workmanlike" is code for "not a super-special auteur genius you need to pay attention to in 2014 or you miss out, loser"

the non-pejorative is "craftsmanlike"

Michael Jackson has released more new music in the five years since his death than in the 12 years before it.

Yeah, for some strange reason I don't think he personally oversaw those releases. Call me crazy.

it doesn't say he did.

Michael Jackson, exhibiting a workmanlike approach, has personally released more music after his death than before it.

lol adam are u insinuating that the author of that piece isn't aware that michael jackson is dead?

It's just a little confusing jumping from "Michael Jackson" the brand to referring to the human being that passed on in the same sentence, using the pronoun "his". It's the first line in the review and sets a president that the person has complicity in these posthumous releases.

Add to this the picture of him hiding and the title of the album being escape and it's sort of, damn, even death didn't free this guy from people using him to make money.

I'm insinuating they could have done more to separate the actual human who has passed on from the eternal money grab over his name.

Michael Jackson, who died in 2009 and no longer has any creative input into his estate, didn't respond to inquiries about his latest posthumous release.

even though president reagan is dead, reaganISM is very much alive, so reagan has almost set a president for enduring beyond death, in the same sense that michael jackson does

even though president reagan is dead

waht?

OMG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN0HfYc5ho0

sets a president

More new Michael Jackson has released more new music has been released in the five years since his death than in the 12 years before it.

If they wrote that you guys would be bitching about passive voice.

Not even the worst thing in that paragraph, as it includes the following:

this strange, underfed, vaguely horrid eight-song record, inexplicably named after the group that had a hit with "Just Kickin' It"

Not "coincidentally sharing a name with," but "inexplicably named after." Like whoever runs Michael Jackson's estate was trying to do an intentional callback to that group.

i just assume that, like a sad modern and indie thomas aquinas, all pitchfork reviews are written via headset microphone dictation midst the stirring of velveeta into shells. it allows me to cut them more slack, and i am happier as a result.

^experimenting with a new aimless-style post filter. i actually like most of the writing on pitchfork.

It’s fitting that Sussegad, the first 12” offering from Moon B, was pressed onto wax whose swirl of black and gray resembled smoke. The Atlanta-based producer (also known as Wes Gray) makes music that has qualities similar to that peculiar element: the music obfuscates its origins, has an untenable aspect to its sound and, well, it sounds better when you’re smoking something on a basement couch, at once digging the beat while similarly forgetting just what it is you’re listening to.

Well that's good, because I just forgot what the fuck I was reading about by the end of that paragraph.

what is an "untenable aspect" of music

you guys you have to smoke something before you can understand that

written via headset microphone dictation midst the stirring of velveeta into shells

love this

hebuilds, Histalent

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/333-curating-music-for-your-wedding/

It’s also important to remember that you can’t make everyone happy with every song. An elderly relative may want to hear Benny Goodman, but that might ruin the flow of your playlist. If the floor year for your playlist is 1966, that’s perfectly OK. Conversely, if the only song from the past two years you include is "Happy" or "Get Lucky" or "Blurred Lines", that's fine. As long as Pharrell's in there somewhere, that's all that matters. (I'm only kind of kidding.)

The playlist I've compiled has soul music, oldies, late-70s rock'n'roll, some garage nuggets from the 1960s, and yes, some hits of today. Maybe you want to pay more attention to "cultivating a dancefloor", which would mean throwing in way more hits. I think what I've done with this playlist is split the difference between the dancin' moms and the 20-something snobs—you might want to err more on the side of the former, which would mean more ABBA, Hall & Oates, or Motown.

I keep looking at this playlist and thinking, "Where is the rap music?" I want so badly to shoehorn Rick Ross or 2 Chainz in there somewhere, but it just feels like it'd be lost on the crowd I've invited. If it's right for the room after the old folks take off, by all means, please do include "International Players Anthem" or its spiritual equivalent.

It's OK to include more than one song by the same artist. Narrowing it down to just one Michael Jackson song isn't easy, but it also isn't necessary.
You probably want to pare back the number of insider-y “it came from the internet” indie rock tracks. If you feel 97% confident that you’ll be drunk and jovial enough to hit the dance floor when that song comes on (and maybe, just maybe, create an “Unstoppable”-like movement), put it on there. If there’s a chance that you’ll just burst into tears as soon as it comes on, skip it.

And of course, it goes without saying, but: Pay attention to transitions. Try to make it so your playlist has a flow and logic to it.

As someone in the midst of planning a wedding, I found that article to be shockingly dumb and lacking in self-awareness.

HAY GUYYYYYYYS I'M I'M GETTING LAAAAAAAAYED

An elderly relative may want to hear Benny Goodman, but that might ruin the flow of your playlist.

"Step the fuck off, Grandma, I got some National to play."

that may be the dumbest thing that cite has every writtwen

Also, all that know-it-all advice about "what works" is based on the predicted success of his wedding playlist, designed for a wedding that had not actually taken place when the article was published.

hahahahaha

it honestly is just an excuse to show off how smart his taste is on the internet, but done in a nationjal publication instead of on his Tumblr.

I should know because I had the same impulse after my wedding, but I would never lack the self-awareness to pitch it to an editor, nor expect an editor to approve such a pitch

lol *drops "inspector norse" at wedding*

"When did you guys get married"

"Well our playlist had Mutual Benefit and Woods"

"Oh, so 2014?"

lol

man when is the next generation gonna come and overthrow our generation so we slink back into bourgeois domesticity without all the lifestyle preening

tbf it's on "the pitch", the bloggy section of the site. i agree though that he probably should've written this after the wedding, it would've been a better article for it. he could've talked about what worked and what didn't rather than speculate based on weddings he's been to.

but in the end, who gives a fuck? it's his wedding. i won't begrudge anybody for picking whatever the fuck they want to listen to at their wedding.

it honestly is just an excuse to show off how smart his taste is on the internet

and lol @ the notion that whiney doesn't do this on a daily fucking basis, here or elsewhere

the last song at my wedding was Raymond Scott's "Toy Trumpet" played twice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGitKtOp3sc

Yeah, I don't care what he plays at his wedding either, but the "I'm going to bless you with my expert advice about how to DJ a wedding" based on the playlists he made before his wedding is silly.

The whole article was full of incredibly obvious considerations dressed up as revelatory knowledge being passed to me by someone who really knows, man!

want to send a flash mob to stand around bored on the dance floor at this dude's wedding

but in the end, who gives a fuck? it's his wedding. i won't begrudge anybody for picking whatever the fuck they want to listen to at their wedding.

― marcos, Monday, May 19, 2014 3:42 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i begrudge him writing an article in public about it because as you said, who gives a fuck? it's his wedding

jfc, as if there isn't an infinitely growing universe of personal minutiae published daily on the web

yes as whiney put it on your tumblr and let this not cross my path

As someone who's read thousands of wedding-advice articles over the last six months, I'd also like to note that on its merits, it's a crappy wedding-advice article.

we did our own wedding music and tbh we did a fantastic job but i don't think anyone wants to hear me talk about it.